FLBear5630 said:

---

I get that you are playing word games.

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

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

---

I don't think everything can be taken as figurative. Just it's obvious that Jesus is not a wooden door. And It's obvious that Christ did not have his Jewish disciples drink human blood and eat human flesh because that would have been sinful.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

As I explained above, he described the language as figurative in one respect but not necessarily in all respects. There is no corresponding discourse about doors. If there were such, it would certainly raise some perplexing questions.

Quote:

---

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.

---

And that's simply incorrect.

Quote:

---

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.

---

All I can say that he believed in the real, true, and substantial presence. We know that angels are spiritual beings, yet they have appeared in human form and interacted with physical matter. Does that mean they are "physically present?" I don't know, but I still believe in them.

Your issue is unbelief, not physics.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

The book is not an official or binding expression of doctrine, therefore it's not officially "endorsed" by the Church.

Shall we judge Protestant denominations off their pastors? This is not a game you want to play.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

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.

---

Wrong? So, you believe there is one answer to all questions that has not changed in 2000 years? Or, the various Councils? Or, should I say since Luther picked what should be included? Or, any of the other changes, edits and omissions?

It is just the Catholic Church that has had these changes? The Protestants have been rock steady since 1400...

You really believe that?

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:

---

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?

---

Because Augustine believed in the real presence, as do I. Whether it should be described as "physical" is another complicated question.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

Though it is figurative, of course.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

But it is figurative, of course.

---

He picked a verse that is poetic and even the Catholic Church said it was a poor choice of word. It is a loaded question, of course Priests are not above God or Christ. There are loads of poorly worded descriptions. Are we going to go through every Priest? Are you believing everything every Protestant Pastor wrote?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

But it is figurative, of course.

---

He picked a verse that is poetic and even the Catholic Church said it was a poor choice of word. It is a loaded question, of course Priests are not above God or Christ. There are loads of poorly worded descriptions. Are we going to go through every Priest? Are you believing everything every Protestant Pastor wrote?

---

I don't think these people do poetry.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I get that you are playing word games.

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

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

---

I don't think everything can be taken as figurative. Just it's obvious that Jesus is not a wooden door. And It's obvious that Christ did not have his Jewish disciples drink human blood and eat human flesh because that would have been sinful.

---

It really is that simple.

Oh yeah. Not much joy at a Lutheran service, alot of not worthy, filthy rags and tithing...

Sam LowryExcept that you ignored the context of all his other writings. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

As I explained above, he described the language as figurative in one respect but not necessarily in all respects. There is no corresponding discourse about doors. If there were such, it would certainly raise some perplexing questions.

Quote:

---

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.

---

And that's simply incorrect.

Quote:

---

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.

---

All I can say that he believed in the real, true, and substantial presence. We know that angels are spiritual beings, yet they have appeared in human form and interacted with physical matter. Does that mean they are "physically present?" I don't know, but I still believe in them.

Your issue is unbelief, not physics.

---

- "As I explained above, he described the language as figurative in one respect but not necessarily in all respects." - Um, no. He didn't describe it as figurative "in one sense". He explicitly stated "It is figurative". Period. You have a real problem with being honest with basic language.

- "There is no corresponding discourse about doors. If there were such, it would certainly raise some perplexing questions." - You don't need a corresponding discourse. It's an analogy, and you're clearly dodging the point of it. And it's obvious why. The "It is figurative" sets the entire context for all the other expressions made in the same vein as the original expression. The sheer number of expressions in the same vein doesn't suddenly change "It is figurative" to "It is literal", not even partially. You're making a nonsense argument.

- "And that's simply incorrect" - No. Again, if you were to say "my heart is broken", and then explain that "it is figurative", then that is an explicit declaration that it is entirely, i.e purely figurative. This is how basic language works. If God said "Gay marriage is a sin", can you really say that it isn't an explicit declaration that gay marriage is entirely a sin? Or do you really think God's statement leaves room for there to be a case where gay marriage is NOT a sin?

- "All I can say that he believed in the real, true, and substantial presence. We know that angels are spiritual beings, yet they have appeared in human form and interacted with physical matter. Does that mean they are "physically present?" I don't know, but I still believe in them.Your issue is unbelief, not physics." - if that's all you can say, then you can't say whether Augustine believed in the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence". Because it includes a physical presence. We're talking about Augustine's belief, not mine. And you just haven't been able to show that he believes in the physical presence in the Eucharist - no matter how you want to conceive that to mean. Your obfuscation is just an attempted distraction from the real point.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

The book is not an official or binding expression of doctrine, therefore it's not officially "endorsed" by the Church.

Shall we judge Protestant denominations off their pastors? This is not a game you want to play.

---

It was clearly endorsed by prominent Roman Catholics, and Catholic organizations. Not being officially endorsed by the Church does not exonerate them from failure to say or do anything about it, if they believed there was a problem. So it must mean they don't have a problem with it. And that's a problem.

Yes, let's play your game. Give an example of a pastor writing a book containing blasphemies that is endorsed by major Protestant figures and organizations. And I guarantee you there won't be silence about it from other Protestants.

Sam LowryAgain, 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. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Because Augustine believed in the real presence, as do I. Whether it should be described as "physical" is another complicated question.

---

How do you know he believed in the "Real Presence", or even you for that matter, if you don't even know what that even entails?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

Though it is figurative, of course.

---

Well, true Christians would be extremely bothered by even figurative blasphemy.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

But it is figurative, of course.

---

He picked a verse that is poetic and even the Catholic Church said it was a poor choice of word. It is a loaded question, of course Priests are not above God or Christ. There are loads of poorly worded descriptions. Are we going to go through every Priest? Are you believing everything every Protestant Pastor wrote?

---

Why doesn't your church condemn it, or at least make an official statement? Why allow major cardinals and apologetics organizations endorse it? Why let a Catholic publisher publish it??

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

But it is figurative, of course.

---

He picked a verse that is poetic and even the Catholic Church said it was a poor choice of word. It is a loaded question, of course Priests are not above God or Christ. There are loads of poorly worded descriptions. Are we going to go through every Priest? Are you believing everything every Protestant Pastor wrote?

---

I don't think these people do poetry.

---

We certainly don't do blasphemy and rank idolatry.

You guys think being "poetic" is going to get you off the hook. You might be in for huge surprise.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryExcept that you ignored the context of all his other writings. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

As I explained above, he described the language as figurative in one respect but not necessarily in all respects. There is no corresponding discourse about doors. If there were such, it would certainly raise some perplexing questions.

Quote:

---

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.

---

And that's simply incorrect.

Quote:

---

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.

---

All I can say that he believed in the real, true, and substantial presence. We know that angels are spiritual beings, yet they have appeared in human form and interacted with physical matter. Does that mean they are "physically present?" I don't know, but I still believe in them.

Your issue is unbelief, not physics.

---

Quote:

---

"As I explained above, he described the language as figurative in one respect but not necessarily in all respects." - Um, no. He didn't describe it as figurative "in one sense". He explicitly stated "It is figurative". Period. You have a real problem with being honest with basic language.

---

---

He stated that it is figurative, period. Thank you. The rest is your interpretation.

Quote:

---

"There is no corresponding discourse about doors. If there were such, it would certainly raise some perplexing questions." - You don't need a corresponding discourse. It's an analogy, and you're clearly dodging the point of it. And it's obvious why. The "It is figurative" sets the entire context for all the other expressions made in the same vein as the original expression.

---

Again, assuming your conclusion.

Quote:

---

"And that's simply incorrect" - No. Again, if you were to say "my heart is broken", and then explain that "it is figurative", then that is an explicit declaration that it is entirely, i.e purely figurative. This is how basic language works. If God said "Gay marriage is a sin", can you really say that it isn't an explicit declaration that gay marriage is entirely a sin? Or do you really think God's statement leaves room for there to be a case where gay marriage is NOT a sin?

---

This is not a question of different cases. It's about the meaning of the declaration itself.

Quote:

---

"All I can say that he believed in the real, true, and substantial presence. We know that angels are spiritual beings, yet they have appeared in human form and interacted with physical matter. Does that mean they are "physically present?" I don't know, but I still believe in them.Your issue is unbelief, not physics." - if that's all you can say, then you can't say whether Augustine believed in the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence". Because it includes a physical presence.

---

I don't know that it does. Even if it does, I doubt any such dogma had been determined at the time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryAgain, 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. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Because Augustine believed in the real presence, as do I. Whether it should be described as "physical" is another complicated question.

---

How do you know he believed in the "Real Presence", or even you for that matter, if you don't even know what that even entails?

---

No one fully understands what it entails. Nor does anyone fully understand how one God consists of three persons. These are among the mysteries of the Christian faith.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

But it is figurative, of course.

---

He picked a verse that is poetic and even the Catholic Church said it was a poor choice of word. It is a loaded question, of course Priests are not above God or Christ. There are loads of poorly worded descriptions. Are we going to go through every Priest? Are you believing everything every Protestant Pastor wrote?

---

I don't think these people do poetry.

---

We certainly don't do blasphemy and rank idolatry.

---

The political threads here suggest otherwise, but we'll leave that for another day.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

Though it is figurative, of course.

---

Well, true Christians would be extremely bothered by even figurative blasphemy.

---

When Catholics recite the Creed, we bow our heads at the words "he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man." We do this to humble ourselves before God because he humbled himself infinitely more to become one of us. He continues to do so in the sacrifice of the mass, by his own will and design. Priests have no power over God, nor does God owe obedience to any human. The expression is one of gratitude that God bows to meet us where we are.

BTW, since you're speaking for true Christians...are you extremely bothered by the figurative blasphemy of feeding on Christ's body?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryExcept that you ignored the context of all his other writings. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

As I explained above, he described the language as figurative in one respect but not necessarily in all respects. There is no corresponding discourse about doors. If there were such, it would certainly raise some perplexing questions.

Quote:

---

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.

---

And that's simply incorrect.

Quote:

---

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.

---

All I can say that he believed in the real, true, and substantial presence. We know that angels are spiritual beings, yet they have appeared in human form and interacted with physical matter. Does that mean they are "physically present?" I don't know, but I still believe in them.

Your issue is unbelief, not physics.

---

Quote:

---

"As I explained above, he described the language as figurative in one respect but not necessarily in all respects." - Um, no. He didn't describe it as figurative "in one sense". He explicitly stated "It is figurative". Period. You have a real problem with being honest with basic language.

---

---

He stated that it is figurative, period. Thank you. The rest is your interpretation.

Quote:

---

"There is no corresponding discourse about doors. If there were such, it would certainly raise some perplexing questions." - You don't need a corresponding discourse. It's an analogy, and you're clearly dodging the point of it. And it's obvious why. The "It is figurative" sets the entire context for all the other expressions made in the same vein as the original expression.

---

Again, assuming your conclusion.

Quote:

---

"And that's simply incorrect" - No. Again, if you were to say "my heart is broken", and then explain that "it is figurative", then that is an explicit declaration that it is entirely, i.e purely figurative. This is how basic language works. If God said "Gay marriage is a sin", can you really say that it isn't an explicit declaration that gay marriage is entirely a sin? Or do you really think God's statement leaves room for there to be a case where gay marriage is NOT a sin?

---

This is not a question of different cases. It's about the meaning of the declaration itself.

Quote:

---

"All I can say that he believed in the real, true, and substantial presence. We know that angels are spiritual beings, yet they have appeared in human form and interacted with physical matter. Does that mean they are "physically present?" I don't know, but I still believe in them.Your issue is unbelief, not physics." - if that's all you can say, then you can't say whether Augustine believed in the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence". Because it includes a physical presence.

---

I don't know that it does. Even if it does, I doubt any such dogma had been determined at the time.

---

- You've assumed your conclusion/interpretation that Augustine was speaking literally for each one of his quotes where he speaks in the same expression as Jesus did - even after he had explicitly explained that Jesus' expression was figurative, NOT literal, and without ANY explicit statement from Augustine that Jesus' figurative expression was literal in any way. I on the other hand, am NOT assuming a conclusion, because of that explicit statement from him that the meaning was figurative, i.e. Augustine made that conclusion himself, therefore I am applying his own conclusion to his own words. BASED ON WHAT are you applying literalism to his words, other than your own assumptions that are based in confirmation bias? That's what I've been asking you to provide, and there's been a lot of arguing and hand waving from you, but the fact remains that you still have not given this.

- If God said "Gay marriage is a sin. You are NOT to marry people of the same sex." - are you saying that this is NOT an explicit declaration that gay marriage is entirely a sin?? Or are you saying that this statement from God can be construed to mean that there are exceptions, since he did not specifically say "entirely" or "purely"?

^^^ answer this question. Please stop avoiding it.

- Does Roman Catholicism say that the "Real Presence" involves the actual, literal, physical flesh of Jesus being present in the Eucharist bread, i.e. transubstantiation? Yes or no? If yes, then clearly, your church DOES know what is entailed by the meaning of "Real Presence" and the meaning of being "physically" present. And so the question is did Augustine believe that? I've repeatedly asked this, never got a real answer. All I've gotten is complete obfuscation from you, seemingly for the purpose of slithering away from the question. But you have to directly answer this, if you want to support your claim that Augustine believed in the "Real Presence" just as all Catholics do. So let's hear an answer. If you obfuscate further, it means you don't know. And that destroys your claim.

FLBear5630 said:

---

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?

---

Trump did not initiate this issue. The Pope did. And if the Pope is going to enter the political realm and try to organize Catholics against Trump policy, Trump would be foolish not to poke back.

Trump is standing with a near supermajority of the public on the immigration issue. The Pope is not.
https://iaproject.org/commentary/poll-americans-support-mass-deportations/

The downside risk you pose should not be a big concern. American Catholics are used to their Church being well to the left of them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryAgain, 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. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Because Augustine believed in the real presence, as do I. Whether it should be described as "physical" is another complicated question.

---

How do you know he believed in the "Real Presence", or even you for that matter, if you don't even know what that even entails?

---

No one fully understands what it entails. Nor does anyone fully understand how one God consists of three persons. These are among the mysteries of the Christian faith.

---

Your church certainly understands that it entails the presence of the actual, literal, physical flesh of Jesus. So much so, that it even dogmatized it.

So stop with your constant dodging, and answer whether this is what Augustine believed, and your citations that support your claim.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

- 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?

---

Sure.

Though it is figurative, of course.

---

Well, true Christians would be extremely bothered by even figurative blasphemy.

---

BTW, since you're speaking for true Christians...are you extremely bothered by the figurative blasphemy of feeding on Christ's body?

---

No, because that isn't blasphemy. It was a figurative command from Jesus himself. Without such a command, and had the suggestion been made by a Protestant pastor in the modern day writing a book, it would most definitely be grievously sinful, and yes, perhaps blasphemous - especially if the gesture is considered an insult to Jesus in the same way that suggesting a mere man can command Jesus to humble obedience.

You bring up a good point, though - if the command wasn't figurative, but literal, and it was purely a sin for the Jews (are you going to argue that?) to eat human flesh and drink real blood, wouldn't Jesus be commanding his disciples to sin, thus making Jesus a sinner himself, which would disqualify him from being the perfect sacrifice?

We can go into the biblical and theological problems concerning the belief in the Eucharist bread being the actual, literal, physical flesh of Jesus later. For right now, I'd be happy just to get an actual response about whether Augustine actually believed that, and the actual citations that support it.