BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
DallasBear9902 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
DallasBear9902 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
DallasBear9902 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
DallasBear9902 said:
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?
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.
Augustine's views on the real presence are subject to debate, and perhaps not completely on top of Catholic teaching when using selective quotes, but the totality of his teachings make it possible to reconcile his teachings that you quote with the Catholic magisterium in a way that Sam has patiently tried to explain to you.
However, the opposite not true. It is impossible to reconcile your interpretation of some of Augustine's statements with the totality of his teachings.
He calls the Eucharist a sacrament in which one thing is seen but another understood (sacraments are not figurative or symbolic).
Augustine instructs that the Eucharist is to be adored before consuming it, even going so far as to say failure to adore the Eucharist would constitute a sin (if it is symbolic. or figurative, we have bigger problems here).
Augustine teaches that when you hear what is on the altar referred to as "the Body of Christ" the faithful are to respond with "Amen".
Augustine refers to a martyred deacon as one who administered the "sacred" chalice of Christ's blood.
Augustine teaches that failure to remain in spiritual communion with the church while taking the Eucharist serves as testimony against those who partake in the Eucharist.
So, to be clear, are you accepting Augustine as an authority on the topic of the Eucharist or not?
Your selective understanding of the Catechism is equally limited.
Ok, let's go over this again, since you guys are having REAL trouble with this.
Do you, or do you not agree, that the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence is that the Eucharist bread is the same body as what the disciples saw in front of them in the Last supper (what they see), and that the Eucharist wine is the same blood of Jesus that was shed on the cross?
Yes or no?
I answered your post. So please, answer my question and then I'll answer your question:
Do you recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist?
No, you did NOT answer the question.
If your answer is yes, then Augustine definitively did NOT believe in the Roman Catholic view of Real Presence. Do you honestly not see that??
I do not recognize Augustine as an infallible authority on anything, much less the Eucharist. But your Church's argument is that Augustine believed in your Real Presence view. I showed that he did not.
I didn't ask if you recognize Augustine as an infalible authority on the Eucharist. I asked if you recognize him as an authority on the Eucharist.
I don't understand why it is so hard to answer such a simple question. So, let's try one more time:
Do you recognize a Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist?
This is a simple question. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to answer.
Folks, what does it tell you about BTD and his theology that he is unwilling to answer such a simple question? Will anyone step up to speak for BTD? Is anyone willing to answer such a simple question about Augustine?
If he's not an infallible authority, then does any other authority you're thinking of matter with regard to the point of this debate? We certainly aren't arguing whether Augustine was an authority on the Eucharist for his particular congregation, or for the Roman Catholic Church, are we?
And even if we are, I think I've clearly shown that Augustine did not believe in the RC view on the Real Presence, so if he's an authority for the RC church, why do you not listen to him?
Now answer MY question. You avoided it. It's a very simple question. Will anyone step up for DallasBear, as he won't speak up?
I don't understand why you are avoiding such a simple and straightforward question. I just want you to be honest with us.
I've already got a reply typed out to your other stuff once you answer my straight forward question.
Do you recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist? Yes or no?
I really don't understand what is so hard about such a straight forward question.
Folks what does it tell us that BTD can't be honest with us about such an easy question? Clearly I have won the argument and he is trying to go back to his already defeated positions. [I'll avoid the rest of his nastiness].
Are you so stupid as to see that my answer is that I don't see him as an infallible authority, and therefore not a meaningful authority at all? If you want to qualify what you mean by "authority", then do so.
And NO, you did NOT answer my question. Folks, let me repeat my question for DallasBear since he obviously is trying to avoid it:
Do you, or do you not agree, that the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence is that the Eucharist bread is the same body as what the disciples saw in front of them in the Last supper (what they see), and that the Eucharist wine is the same blood of Jesus that was shed on the cross?
Yes or no?
Straight up cut and paste of the question above that you neglected to answer, and then went on a tirade about how I don't answer questions, when I clearly did.
A. Well, thank you for actually getting to the substance of the issue. I don't know why it was so hard to admit that you don't see Augustine as any meaningful authority at all.
Paraphrase BTD: "I don't actually believe he is a meaningful authority but let me explain to you what he means and why you Catholics are wrong based on his teachings."
B. Do you really not recognize your own petty churlish style mirrored right back at you? My "tirade" is a reflection of how you behave on these forums every single day, sometimes even on an hourly basis. Every accusation from you is nothing more than an admission.
C. I promised a serious answer, so here you go:
1. We know that Jesus lost followers over his teaching that they would need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Seems like an odd thing for Jesus to lose followers over if he wasn't being literal. But reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose.
2. The next question is what do you believe the apostles consumed at The Last Supper after Jesus consecrated the bread and wine? CCC 1376, which you selectively emphasized, has an introductory that establishes what Catholic teaching is saying (again, you should read and comprehend the totality instead of playing your silly gotcha games). CCC 1376: Jesus himself said it was his Body and the covenant was in his blood. [Totality Alert:] Catholic teaching recognizes The Last Supper as the first Mass. Consequently, what 1376 is telling you is that God, through the Holy Spirit, using his priests, consecrates the communion wafers and wine into the same thing that Christ consecrated the bread and wine into at The Last Supper. Nothing more and nothing less. [Totality Alert] What is not seen physically is understood spiritually (Augustine). In whatever form Jesus was present in the consecrated bread and wine at The Last Supper (we believe the substance of his real presence was there) is how he is present in the Mass I attended this morning and any other time Catholics have celebrated the Mass culminating in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. So, do I believe that the apostles consumed his real body in the consecrated bread and wine at The Last Supper? Yes, Jesus said as much. I also believe that is exactly the sacrifice that is offered at the Mass.
So answer for yourself what you believe the apostles consumed at The Last Supper. Your answer to that issue will tell you what you believe you are consuming when you take communion in 2026.
3. As for Augustine,
a. that he calls the communion a sacrament tells you that he does not believe it is symbolic or figurative. I know, you reject the idea of sacraments, but labeling it a sacrament confers that Augustine believes something divine and holy is in the communion. Otherwise there is no universe in which he would call it a sacrament.
b. That he instructs adoration (worship) of the Eucharist because he is worshipping the body of the Jesus, and even suggests it is a sin not to adore it prior to consuming it, screams that he believes there is something holy and divine in the Eucharist. If he truly believes the Eucharist is symbolic and figurative, then he is engaging in something sinister. Note, you accuse of us or worshipping Mary even though we tell you Marian devotions are (i) veneration and (ii) not required by the Church.
Here Augustine is teaching something much deeper than veneration should occur and that it is required. If he believes it is figurative or symbolic, well, I can't wait to hear what label you have for him.
c. Augustine's reference of a martyred deacon as an administrator of the "sacred" chalice of Christ's blood is obviously telling you he sees the Eucharist as divine. To refer to the chalice as sacred could only be done if he believes what the vessel carries is divine.
d. Teaching spiritual damnation for failure to be in communion with the church (lower case "c" just for you, but, obviously we believe it is the "Church" he is referring to) while partaking in communion self-evidently express the divine nature of the Eucharist. I hope you don't need an explanation for that.
There is more from Augustine, but this is enough for now. The original point remains: Sam has patiently tried to harmonize the Augustine quotes you have selectively emphasized with the totality of Augustine's teachings and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Perhaps you disagree with Sam, but reasonable minds can get to where Sam is.
What cannot be done is harmonization of your interpretation that Augustine viewed the Eucharist as symbolic and figurative with the totality of Augustine's teachings (let alone the Magisterium). So, either Augustine was sloppy, lazy, insincere or you are misunderstanding him.
Given that you don't even recognize him as a meaningful authority (your words), I'm not sure why you are trying to argue what any of his teachings truly, actually mean other than engaging in some game where you hope to score cheap points by taking things out of their complete context and then pretending you don't understand when people like Sam patiently explain it to you.
Also, FYI, the Catholic Church does not recognize doctors of Church as infallible. Tremendous guides, generally very good on theology, but still susceptible to error.
