BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Any takers who want to entertain the village idiot this weekend?

---

I already did. Haven't you been reading the past 3 pages?

How about you? Do you acknowledge that the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" involves the actual, literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus, the same flesh and blood that the disciples were looking at in the Last Supper, the same flesh and blood that was sacrificed on the cross?

Yes, or no?

---

Oh yeah, that sounds about right. Good stuff.

---

So that's a yes? You agree that is the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence?

---

I submit to Rome.

---

Which means what, regarding what I asked?

Are you afraid to have this discussion? Is that why you're being evasive?

---

Lmao, what do you think it means?

Your reading comprehension is poor. No wonder you misinterpreted Augustine's writings!

---

What I think it means is not what I asked. I asked what YOU think that means.specifically in regard to the question I asked: do you acknowledge that the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" involves the actual, literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus, the same flesh and blood that the disciples were looking at in the Last Supper, the same flesh and blood that was sacrificed on the cross? You say you "submit to Rome". Does that mean you acknowledge all that to be true?

Apparently, it was your reading comprehension that failed there, wasn't it?

---

It's the weekend, no one has time to hold your hand through another theological debate. You know the view of the Church, and you know (most) Catholics submit to that view.

Here's what my home Parish thinks about the Eucharist. And fun fact, this church has been maintained by Augustine Friars since 1796, in fact it's the oldest permanent establishment of the Augustinian Order in The United States.

https://www.st-augustinechurch.com/eucharist

---

He knows more. He figured all this out and all those that came before were either not as intelligent or Satan's agents.

He is not looking to understand, he is looking to play gottcha based on the Baptist view.

I am more interested what your Church says. Cool that it is run by Augustinians. The Orders know their stuff. I attend a Franciscan run Parish. If I can find a Church run by an Order, that is where I head.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

What's embarrassing is that you continue to take ONE paragraph out of context even though it's been explained to you by myself and others. You seem SO desperate for your false belief to be right that you forego rationality to accept the truth.

EVERY quote demonstrates that Augustine is means it literally. The context of ALL of his writings demonstrates his belief in the Real Presence. He is a Catholic Saint and Doctor of the Church. If he didn't belief in one of the MOST core tenants of the Church that was believed from the beginning, he would never have been called a Doctor of the Church.

But hey, keep clinging to your false belief if it makes you feel better.

Realitybites said:

---

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

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

---

Defining Metaphysics as the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being itself not merely how things appear, behave, or function, but what they fundamentally are at the deepest level of reality.

Therefore, a metaphysical change alters being itself what the thing is at the most fundamental ontological level, beneath and beyond anything the senses or instruments can detect.

So, to answer your question, YES there is a metaphysical change in the elements.

With respect to the "current dictionary definition", you are using, obviously, today's term, not aristotelian philosophy. That's the basis for the terms substance and accidents.

I'm not sure why that you're hung up on this.

Realitybites said:

---

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

---

I'm not trying to make this a Catholic/Orthodox debate; however, I will say that all three of those factions believe that Pope Leo is a validly elected Pope.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

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

---

How so?

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?

---

When one understands the poetry behind his paragraph, yes, I do believe in the Eucharist.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Pretty sure I just heard a deep heavy sigh from the Holy Ghost.

---

Pretty familiar with that sound, are you?

---

Sometimes, but this time it was not about me. I expect that one causes quite a few of those sighs but never hears them because he is obsessed with his own voice.

---

Fascinating.

One person took offense to this post, but everyone else ignored it, including some who should have considered the point.

I guess it really is true, that some here are just about their ego and pride, not trying to understand or gain wisdom from other experiences from fellow believers.

And that sort of thing does grieve the Holy Spirit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- 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.

---

Your statement is hinged on the word, "Physical."
I found this so that I can provide precise language better define the terms so as to help keep them from being twisted or distorted.

***
Yes the Real Presence involves the actual, literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This is not symbolic, not metaphorical, not merely spiritual in a vague sense.

No it does not involve flesh and blood present in the ordinary physical or local manner in which a body normally exists in space.

The critical word that must be defined with surgical precision is "physical." If "physical" means observable, spatially located, biologically raw flesh then the answer requires a careful qualification. If "physical" means genuinely, objectively, really corporeal then the answer is an unqualified yes.
***

Christ is truly, really, and substantially present but not locally or spatially present.

Aquinas is explicit that Christ's body is present "after the manner of substance, and not after the manner of quantity" (per modum substantiae, et non per modum quantitatis, ST III, q. 76, a. 1, ad 3), and denies that Christ is present localiter "in the manner of being in a place" in the sacrament (ST III, q. 76, a. 5). Christ is not contained spatially in the Host the way a body occupies a chair; the presence is real but not local, which is why the Eucharist cannot be subjected to the ordinary physical tests one would apply to a body in space.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- 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.

---

Your statement is hinged on the word, "Physical."
I found this so that I can provide precise language better define the terms so as to help keep them from being twisted or distorted.

***
Yes the Real Presence involves the actual, literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This is not symbolic, not metaphorical, not merely spiritual in a vague sense.

No it does not involve flesh and blood present in the ordinary physical or local manner in which a body normally exists in space.

The critical word that must be defined with surgical precision is "physical." If "physical" means observable, spatially located, biologically raw flesh then the answer requires a careful qualification. If "physical" means genuinely, objectively, really corporeal then the answer is an unqualified yes.
***

Christ is truly, really, and substantially present but not locally or spatially present.

Aquinas is explicit that Christ's body is present "after the manner of substance, and not after the manner of quantity" (per modum substantiae, et non per modum quantitatis, ST III, q. 76, a. 1, ad 3), and denies that Christ is present localiter "in the manner of being in a place" in the sacrament (ST III, q. 76, a. 5). Christ is not contained spatially in the Host the way a body occupies a chair; the presence is real but not local, which is why the Eucharist cannot be subjected to the ordinary physical tests one would apply to a body in space.

---

Do you agree that the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" is that the Eucharist bread is the same body that stood before the disciples during the Last Supper, the same body that they were seeing, and that the wine is the same blood that was shed on the cross?

And to be further sure: do you agree that according to the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence, when Jesus broke the bread apart during the Last Supper, it meant that he broke apart his own actual body, in other words he made divisions of his body (separated his body into different pieces), the body that they see, to give to the disciples to eat?

Yes, or no?

You are really overthinking this.

Each piece is the full body of Christ, it was simply to share with the rest. You make it sound like someone got the foot, some got an arm...

If you want to get all meta on it, there is one and he shares with all.

Or, it is a mystery. When I recieve it is not labeled, so I don't know what part I get...

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are really overthinking this.

Each piece is the full body of Christ, it was simply to share with the rest. You make it sound like someone got the foot, some got an arm...

If you want to get all meta on it, there is one and he shares with all.

Or, it is a mystery. When I recieve it is not labeled, so I don't know what part I get...

---

You're the one overthinking this. I just want an answer to the question. It's about what YOU think, not what I think. So what say you?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- 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.

---

Your statement is hinged on the word, "Physical."
I found this so that I can provide precise language better define the terms so as to help keep them from being twisted or distorted.

***
Yes the Real Presence involves the actual, literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This is not symbolic, not metaphorical, not merely spiritual in a vague sense.

No it does not involve flesh and blood present in the ordinary physical or local manner in which a body normally exists in space.

The critical word that must be defined with surgical precision is "physical." If "physical" means observable, spatially located, biologically raw flesh then the answer requires a careful qualification. If "physical" means genuinely, objectively, really corporeal then the answer is an unqualified yes.
***

Christ is truly, really, and substantially present but not locally or spatially present.

Aquinas is explicit that Christ's body is present "after the manner of substance, and not after the manner of quantity" (per modum substantiae, et non per modum quantitatis, ST III, q. 76, a. 1, ad 3), and denies that Christ is present localiter "in the manner of being in a place" in the sacrament (ST III, q. 76, a. 5). Christ is not contained spatially in the Host the way a body occupies a chair; the presence is real but not local, which is why the Eucharist cannot be subjected to the ordinary physical tests one would apply to a body in space.

---

Physical would indeed mean observable, spatially located, and measurable in our three dimensional world. By your explanation then, I take transubstantiation to mean that the elements are transformed into Christ's body and blood metaphysically.

Here's another interesting thing to ponder. Christ's resurrected body was different from his incarnate body. He could walk through doors/walls. He could move from one location to another without walking.

So is Christ's real presence in the Eucharist that of his incarnate body or that of his resurrected body? I don't know if I've ever heard that question asked or answered.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- 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.

---

Your statement is hinged on the word, "Physical."
I found this so that I can provide precise language better define the terms so as to help keep them from being twisted or distorted.

***
Yes the Real Presence involves the actual, literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This is not symbolic, not metaphorical, not merely spiritual in a vague sense.

No it does not involve flesh and blood present in the ordinary physical or local manner in which a body normally exists in space.

The critical word that must be defined with surgical precision is "physical." If "physical" means observable, spatially located, biologically raw flesh then the answer requires a careful qualification. If "physical" means genuinely, objectively, really corporeal then the answer is an unqualified yes.
***

Christ is truly, really, and substantially present but not locally or spatially present.

Aquinas is explicit that Christ's body is present "after the manner of substance, and not after the manner of quantity" (per modum substantiae, et non per modum quantitatis, ST III, q. 76, a. 1, ad 3), and denies that Christ is present localiter "in the manner of being in a place" in the sacrament (ST III, q. 76, a. 5). Christ is not contained spatially in the Host the way a body occupies a chair; the presence is real but not local, which is why the Eucharist cannot be subjected to the ordinary physical tests one would apply to a body in space.

---

Physical would indeed mean observable, spatially located, and measurable in our three dimensional world. By your explanation then, I take transubstantiation to mean that the elements are transformed into Christ's body and blood metaphysically.

Here's another interesting thing to ponder. Christ's resurrected body was different from his incarnate body. He could walk through doors/walls. He could move from one location to another without walking.

So is Christ's real presence in the Eucharist that of his incarnate body or that of his resurrected body? I don't know if I've ever heard that question asked or answered.

---

Good post. Seems like many only consider the word 'mystery' when watching a crime drama.

Has anybody bothered to ask? James 1:5 says he will tell you

It doesnt have to be a mystery

BellCountyBear said:

---

Thank God for Martin Luther.

---

He nailed it...

Assassin said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

Thank God for Martin Luther.

---

He nailed it...

---

Assassin said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

Thank God for Martin Luther.

---

He nailed it...

---

Yeah, just think if he didn't want to screw a Nun, there would be one unified Church. Thank God for German Nobility wanting their money to stay in Germany to help.



Ok, may be a bit out of bounds.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- 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.

---

Your statement is hinged on the word, "Physical."
I found this so that I can provide precise language better define the terms so as to help keep them from being twisted or distorted.

***
Yes the Real Presence involves the actual, literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This is not symbolic, not metaphorical, not merely spiritual in a vague sense.

No it does not involve flesh and blood present in the ordinary physical or local manner in which a body normally exists in space.

The critical word that must be defined with surgical precision is "physical." If "physical" means observable, spatially located, biologically raw flesh then the answer requires a careful qualification. If "physical" means genuinely, objectively, really corporeal then the answer is an unqualified yes.
***

Christ is truly, really, and substantially present but not locally or spatially present.

Aquinas is explicit that Christ's body is present "after the manner of substance, and not after the manner of quantity" (per modum substantiae, et non per modum quantitatis, ST III, q. 76, a. 1, ad 3), and denies that Christ is present localiter "in the manner of being in a place" in the sacrament (ST III, q. 76, a. 5). Christ is not contained spatially in the Host the way a body occupies a chair; the presence is real but not local, which is why the Eucharist cannot be subjected to the ordinary physical tests one would apply to a body in space.

---

Do you agree that the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" is that the Eucharist bread is the same body that stood before the disciples during the Last Supper, the same body that they were seeing, and that the wine is the same blood that was shed on the cross?

And to be further sure: do you agree that according to the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence, when Jesus broke the bread apart during the Last Supper, it meant that he broke apart his own actual body, in other words he made divisions of his body (separated his body into different pieces), the body that they see, to give to the disciples to eat?

Yes, or no?

---

CokeBear? Cat got your tongue?

For a person who is so sure they are right and I am wrong in my "false beliefs", you sure got easily stumped by a simple question.

How about any of you other Catholics? FLbear? BigGame? Others? Can you answer my question above?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are really overthinking this.

Each piece is the full body of Christ, it was simply to share with the rest. You make it sound like someone got the foot, some got an arm...

If you want to get all meta on it, there is one and he shares with all.

Or, it is a mystery. When I recieve it is not labeled, so I don't know what part I get...

---

You're the one overthinking this. I just want an answer to the question. It's about what YOU think, not what I think. So what say you?

---

FLBear? Cat got your tongue?

Can you answer my question?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

CokeBear, care to enter the discussion? What do you say? Is the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" that the Eucharist bread becomes the same body that the disciples were looking at in the Last Supper, the same body that was sacrificed on the cross? Based on what you said above, it seems like your Church is saying "yes". Is that correct?

---

Yes!!!

According to St Augustine, -

"Christ Held Himself in His Own Hands"

Enarration on Psalm 98:

In his commentary on Psalm 33, St Augustine he speaks of Christ holding His own Body in His hands at the Last Supper:

"Christ was being carried in his own hands when he handed over his body, saying, 'This is my body'; for he was holding that very body in his hands as he spoke."

Assassin said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

Thank God for Martin Luther.

---

He nailed it...

---

Actually, there is no proof that Luther actually nailed his 95 Thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church.

Most scholars agree today that he sent his theses to the Archbishop of Mainz and the Bishop of Brandenburg on or around October 31, 1517, as part of a formal request for an academic dispute.

They written in academic Latin for academics, not in German for the public, which argues against a rebellious public declaration.

It's not the grand event that protestants pretend this to be.

There was not a hammering at the door.

Sorry, not sorry to burst your protestant-pride day bubble.

Realitybites said:

---

Here's another interesting thing to ponder. Christ's resurrected body was different from his incarnate body. He could walk through doors/walls. He could move from one location to another without walking.

So is Christ's real presence in the Eucharist that of his incarnate body or that of his resurrected body? I don't know if I've ever heard that question asked or answered.

---

As I understand correctly, the Eucharist is the Risen, Glorified Body of Christ.

BTW, the terms used for the abilities that Christ has post his resurrection (and we will have at the resurrection) are:

impassibility - freedom from suffering.
subtlety - risen body's complete responsiveness to and perfect expression of the soul's interior life
agility - freedom from the limitations of space, time, and effort that constrain earthly bodily existence.
clarity - it will be lightsome.

With you.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

CokeBear, care to enter the discussion? What do you say? Is the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" that the Eucharist bread becomes the same body that the disciples were looking at in the Last Supper, the same body that was sacrificed on the cross? Based on what you said above, it seems like your Church is saying "yes". Is that correct?

---

Yes!!!

According to St Augustine, -

"Christ Held Himself in His Own Hands"

Enarration on Psalm 98:

---

Then Augustine did not believe in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence!

You: The Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence is that the bread IS the same body the disciples see, and the wine IS the same blood that was sacrificed on the cross.

Augustine: "Understand what I have said spiritually. You are NOT going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed."


Thank you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Here's another interesting thing to ponder. Christ's resurrected body was different from his incarnate body. He could walk through doors/walls. He could move from one location to another without walking.

So is Christ's real presence in the Eucharist that of his incarnate body or that of his resurrected body? I don't know if I've ever heard that question asked or answered.

---

As I understand correctly, the Eucharist is the Risen, Glorified Body of Christ.

---

That's my understanding too.

---

Complete and utter blasphemy.

The risen, glorified body of Jesus is not the body that was sacrificed on the cross. It was his earthly, incarnate body that had to be sacrificed to atone for sin, the same body that had to be broken for us. "This is my body" was said of that body. His immortal, glorified body, he received after finishing that work, completely, and ONCE FOR ALL. It can NOT be broken again, and most certainly does NOT need to be broken for our sin ANY MORE.

You Roman Catholics, by offering up his glorified body as an offering for sin over and over and over again in the Eucharist, are saying to Jesus "No, it is NOT finished" and saying to God that he glorified him without having finished. This is EXACTLY what Satan wants you to think and he delights in watching you break and eat Jesus' glorified body to pay for sin that he already paid for as a continual insult to Jesus.

Are you really going to do and say this to Jesus, by putting that piece of bread in your mouth and by drinking that juice today?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Here's another interesting thing to ponder. Christ's resurrected body was different from his incarnate body. He could walk through doors/walls. He could move from one location to another without walking.

So is Christ's real presence in the Eucharist that of his incarnate body or that of his resurrected body? I don't know if I've ever heard that question asked or answered.

---

As I understand correctly, the Eucharist is the Risen, Glorified Body of Christ.

---

That's my understanding too.

---

Complete and utter blasphemy.

The risen, glorified body of Jesus is not the body that was sacrificed on the cross. It was his earthly, incarnate body that had to be sacrificed to atone for sin, the same body that had to be broken for us. "This is my body" was said of that body. His immortal, glorified body, he received after finishing that work, completely, and ONCE FOR ALL. It can NOT be broken again, and most certainly does NOT need to be broken for our sin ANY MORE.

You Roman Catholics, by offering up his glorified body as an offering for sin over and over and over again in the Eucharist, are saying to Jesus "No, it is NOT finished" and saying to God that he glorified him without having finished. This is EXACTLY what Satan wants you to think and he delights in watching you break and eat Jesus' glorified body to pay for sin that he already paid for as a continual insult to Jesus.

Are you really going to do and say this to Jesus, by putting that piece of bread in your mouth and by drinking that juice today?

---

Yup, did it this morning! Happy Sunday.

His work is finished. A miracle isn't subject to these time categories you're trying to put on it.

Do this in memory of me.

The Devil loves playing to pnes ego, that they know more to keep people from Christ.

You may want to reflect on whether your energy is for his glory or yours. You seem to be arguing pushing people away from believing that Christ lives among us in the Sacraments. How productive is that?
.

Did I miss something here? Why is Mr. Sola Scriptura hanging on the very word of Augustine all of a sudden?

Is the argument here that Augustine didn't believe in the real presence?

Sam Lowry said:

---

His work is finished. A miracle isn't subject to these time categories you're trying to put on it.

---

Do you guys really believe the ad hoc BS you argue?

Do the honest thing and acknowledge what I have proven to be true. Stop lying to yourself, and stop listening to what your Church tells you without looking into it yourself. This is what Jesus would want you to do: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" - Luke 12:57

FLBear5630 said:

---

Do this in memory of me.

The Devil loves playing to pnes ego, that they know more to keep people from Christ.

You may want to reflect on whether your energy is for his glory or yours. You seem to be arguing pushing people away from believing that Christ lives among us in the Sacraments. How productive is that?
.

---

For someone who isn't a Christian, and who isn't even Catholic, what do you know about giving glory to God?

Jesus doesn't just live "among us", he lives inside every believer. And no sacrament is needed for this. Just belief.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Did I miss something here? Why is Mr. Sola Scriptura hanging on the very word of Augustine all of a sudden?

Is the argument here that Augustine didn't believe in the real presence?

---

Thank you. Sola scriptura is true, so I'm happy to be called that.

If you haven't gathered that I have proven that Augustine does not believe in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence, then you are either in denial or you have zero comprehension.

And how is sola scriptura not true? We know that Scripture is infallible. What other source of authority is infallible?

The pope? Don't make me laugh. Do we even need to debate this?
The College of Cardinals? How can they be, when they select anti-christ popes?
The bishops? Clearly not.
The priests? Do I even need to say anything?

The "magisterium" and church councils? Which magisterium and councils? There's no agreement over which councils are ecumenical, and thus valid, and councils have been accepted, rejected, and then accepted again. Councils have made icon veneration mandatory - when it is completely absent in Scripture and the early church, and even in the early church it was universally condemned. Councils did not agree as to the canon of Scripture. The Council of Trent anathematized the canons of Athanasius, Jerome, and the majority of fathers, theologians, scholars from the time of Jerome up until the time of the Reformation.

So what other source other than Scripture do you hold as infallible? If you can't argue for another, then even YOU have to agree with sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

His work is finished. A miracle isn't subject to these time categories you're trying to put on it.

---

Do you guys really believe the ad hoc BS you argue?

Do the honest thing and acknowledge what I have proven to be true. Stop lying to yourself, and stop listening to what your Church tells you without looking into it yourself. This is what Jesus would want you to do: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" - Luke 12:57

---

Ad hoc? We're talking about centuries of Church teaching. It's not as if you're the first to ask these questions and everyone's scrambling to come up with an answer, you know.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Did I miss something here? Why is Mr. Sola Scriptura hanging on the very word of Augustine all of a sudden?

Is the argument here that Augustine didn't believe in the real presence?

---

The "magisterium" and church councils? Which magisterium and councils? There's no agreement over which councils are ecumenical, and thus valid, and councils have been accepted, rejected, and then accepted again. Councils have made icon veneration mandatory - when it is completely absent in Scripture and the early church, and even in the early church it was universally condemned. Councils did not agree as to the canon of Scripture. The Council of Trent anathematized the canons of Athanasius, Jerome, and the majority of fathers, theologians, scholars from the time of Jerome up until the time of the Reformation.

---

None of this is accurate in terms of how the councils worked or what they accomplished. Icon veneration was never mandatory. The Church didn't retroactively anathematize everyone who'd used a different canon.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

His work is finished. A miracle isn't subject to these time categories you're trying to put on it.

---

Do you guys really believe the ad hoc BS you argue?

Do the honest thing and acknowledge what I have proven to be true. Stop lying to yourself, and stop listening to what your Church tells you without looking into it yourself. This is what Jesus would want you to do: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" - Luke 12:57

---

Ad hoc? We're talking about centuries of Church teaching. It's not as if you're the first to ask these questions and everyone's scrambling to come up with an answer, you know.

---

Centuries of ad hoc reasoning does not magically turn them into valid reasoning.

"Scrambling to come up with an answer" is exactly what they did, and what you did with your "time categories" nonsense argument. It makes absolutely no sense, except to people desperate to come up with a rebuttal... ANY rebuttal, no matter how stupid.