ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Just you.

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Perhaps Rome is aligned with the globalist agenda of a new globalist led one word order?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

"Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal."

Except where he does. Clearly and explicitly.

The degree of denial in RC's is absolutely astonishing as well as depressing to witness. My God.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

---

Devout Catholics bow and pray before statues of Mary, credit her for their salvation, believe that the mass is a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for sins committed since the last mass (i.e., Jesus' work was NOT finished and his sacrifice was NOT once for all time), believe that salvation is contingent upon their work and merit, and believe in purgatory where they must pay for their sins, expressly denying the finished work of Jesus.

Can you really call all this "putting their faith in Christ"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

---

Devout Catholics bow and pray before statues of Mary, credit her for their salvation, believe that the mass is a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for sins committed since the last mass (i.e., Jesus' work was NOT finished and his sacrifice was NOT once for all time), believe that salvation is contingent upon their work and merit, and believe in purgatory where they must pay for their sins, expressly denying the finished work of Jesus.

Can you really call all this "putting their faith in Christ"?

---

“Jesus isn’t the way the truth or the life exclusively. There are many ways to inherit eternal life.”

–Satan himself pic.twitter.com/jsYyZNPG1d

— David (@David_wthebeard) May 5, 2026

Meanwhile

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

---

Devout Catholics bow and pray before statues of Mary, credit her for their salvation, believe that the mass is a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for sins committed since the last mass (i.e., Jesus' work was NOT finished and his sacrifice was NOT once for all time), believe that salvation is contingent upon their work and merit, and believe in purgatory where they must pay for their sins, expressly denying the finished work of Jesus.

Can you really call all this "putting their faith in Christ"?

---

“Jesus isn’t the way the truth or the life exclusively. There are many ways to inherit eternal life.”

–Satan himself pic.twitter.com/jsYyZNPG1d

— David (@David_wthebeard) May 5, 2026

Meanwhile

---

I agree with you completely. That is not Christianity. People who are devout believers in that church's teachings are not saved.

So... your point?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

---

Devout Catholics bow and pray before statues of Mary, credit her for their salvation, believe that the mass is a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for sins committed since the last mass (i.e., Jesus' work was NOT finished and his sacrifice was NOT once for all time), believe that salvation is contingent upon their work and merit, and believe in purgatory where they must pay for their sins, expressly denying the finished work of Jesus.

Can you really call all this "putting their faith in Christ"?

---

“Jesus isn’t the way the truth or the life exclusively. There are many ways to inherit eternal life.”

–Satan himself pic.twitter.com/jsYyZNPG1d

— David (@David_wthebeard) May 5, 2026

Meanwhile

---

I agree with you completely. That is not Christianity. People who are devout believers in that church's teachings are not saved.

So... your point?

---

These are your people.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

---

Devout Catholics bow and pray before statues of Mary, credit her for their salvation, believe that the mass is a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for sins committed since the last mass (i.e., Jesus' work was NOT finished and his sacrifice was NOT once for all time), believe that salvation is contingent upon their work and merit, and believe in purgatory where they must pay for their sins, expressly denying the finished work of Jesus.

Can you really call all this "putting their faith in Christ"?

---

“Jesus isn’t the way the truth or the life exclusively. There are many ways to inherit eternal life.”

–Satan himself pic.twitter.com/jsYyZNPG1d

— David (@David_wthebeard) May 5, 2026

Meanwhile

---

I agree with you completely. That is not Christianity. People who are devout believers in that church's teachings are not saved.

So... your point?

---

These are your people.

---

"My people" are those who believe and trust in Jesus alone for their salvation. Like with Roman Catholicism, there could very well be true believers in that church, who are saved not because of their church's teachings, but in spite of them.

It's strange how you RC's will charge us with having 45,000 separated denominations (or whatever that number you guys say it is) thus signifying our disunity with different sets of rules and authorities.... and then when it's convenient to your argument, all of the sudden we're united again under one set of rules and authority. It's really hard to keep up with what you guys think Protestantism is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

---

Devout Catholics bow and pray before statues of Mary, credit her for their salvation, believe that the mass is a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for sins committed since the last mass (i.e., Jesus' work was NOT finished and his sacrifice was NOT once for all time), believe that salvation is contingent upon their work and merit, and believe in purgatory where they must pay for their sins, expressly denying the finished work of Jesus.

Can you really call all this "putting their faith in Christ"?

---

“Jesus isn’t the way the truth or the life exclusively. There are many ways to inherit eternal life.”

–Satan himself pic.twitter.com/jsYyZNPG1d

— David (@David_wthebeard) May 5, 2026

Meanwhile

---

I agree with you completely. That is not Christianity. People who are devout believers in that church's teachings are not saved.

So... your point?

---

These are your people.

---

"My people" are those who believe and trust in Jesus alone for their salvation. Like with Roman Catholicism, there could very well be true believers in that church, who are saved not because of their church's teachings, but in spite of them.

It's strange how you RC's will charge us with having 45,000 separated denominations (or whatever that number you guys say it is) thus signifying our disunity with different sets of rules and authorities.... and then when it's convenient to your argument, all of the sudden we're united again under one set of rules and authority. It's really hard to keep up with what you guys think Protestantism is.

---

So which of the 45,000 are you?

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

It certainly seems like politics is a big part of Pope-choosing nowadays. TBH though, I think that goes all the way back to JP2.

And most denominations can't seem to remember Jesus said 'My Kingdom is not of this world'. It's almost as if many of the Protestant churches have a very different Scripture for their doctrines, as well.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

It certainly seems like politics is a big part of Pope-choosing nowadays. TBH though, I think that goes all the way back to JP2.

And most denominations can't seem to remember Jesus said 'My Kingdom is not of this world'. It's almost as if many of the Protestant churches have a very different Scripture for their doctrines, as well.

---

BOOM goes the dynamite.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

---

Devout Catholics bow and pray before statues of Mary, credit her for their salvation, believe that the mass is a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for sins committed since the last mass (i.e., Jesus' work was NOT finished and his sacrifice was NOT once for all time), believe that salvation is contingent upon their work and merit, and believe in purgatory where they must pay for their sins, expressly denying the finished work of Jesus.

Can you really call all this "putting their faith in Christ"?

---

“Jesus isn’t the way the truth or the life exclusively. There are many ways to inherit eternal life.”

–Satan himself pic.twitter.com/jsYyZNPG1d

— David (@David_wthebeard) May 5, 2026

Meanwhile

---

I agree with you completely. That is not Christianity. People who are devout believers in that church's teachings are not saved.

So... your point?

---

These are your people.

---

"My people" are those who believe and trust in Jesus alone for their salvation. Like with Roman Catholicism, there could very well be true believers in that church, who are saved not because of their church's teachings, but in spite of them.

It's strange how you RC's will charge us with having 45,000 separated denominations (or whatever that number you guys say it is) thus signifying our disunity with different sets of rules and authorities.... and then when it's convenient to your argument, all of the sudden we're united again under one set of rules and authority. It's really hard to keep up with what you guys think Protestantism is.

---

So which of the 45,000 are you?

---

The question you should really be asking of yourself, is "am I listed among the number that is saved?"

One of the principal errors of RC's and Orthodox is that they have an institutional understanding of Christianity, complete with necessary rites, rituals, relics, and human mediators between you and God's grace. They believe one is saved through their church. But Christianity is a personal faith-based, riteless, relic-less, and priest/bishop-less faith, with Jesus as the only High Priest, with a priesthood of all believers. Jesus does not come into a wafer or a cup of wine, he comes into the heart of every believer. Jesus does not need human mediators, Mary, relics, icons, etc. to be reached. He is available to anyone in their heart, at any time, in any situation. You do not need the authority of an institutional church and its human mediators to receive God's graces - every believer has full access to ALL of God's graces because they have full access to God directly, through Jesus Christ who lives in them.

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

Notice Jesus doesn't say "if anyone has a priest/bishop or Mary open the door for you, then I will enter".

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox gets it so completely wrong. RC and Orthodoxy are filled with people who have not been truly regenerated in the heart. They are not born again. It's why you seek him and salvation through sacraments, not through spirit and faith.

Augustine on the 6th Chapter of John:

Quote:

---

It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing?

It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much.

For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Everyone refers to it as the body and blood of Christ, even those that hold to a more symbolic view.

I'm stating that I believe the RCC overstates the readings because they need it to be true - it is required for RCC transubstantiation, and their church needs it from an authority perspective, something we see over and over from the RC's. Making it so the only path to heaven is through their doors and their priests.

---

I would appreciate you clarify what you specifically mean here.

The fact that the Eucharist body the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in NOT because the Catholic (or Orthodox) "need it to be true." It's because that's what Jesus said in John 6 and ALL narratives of the Last Supper. It was affirmed in Acts, Corinthians, etc. It was believed by all of Yourthe earliest Church fathers.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Fwiw, I think there is something between "Real Presence" and "Symbolic". Something can be a spiritually significant symbol that aligns one with the Spirit and Christ. Is it real presence "in the eucharist" or is it the real presence of Christ in the act of taking communion, I lean towards the latter. If I am willfully sinning, I will repent before taking the Eucharist because I believe the act to be something significant more than simple symbol, but something less than literal. I think my view is what Augustine and maybe others alluded to in much better words.

---

I understand your ecumenical point of view here; however, I disagree with the notion that Augustine didn't believe in the Real Presence given the corpus of his works.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Last, who can doubt its significance, and reduce it to mere symbol? Not even the prots, which I am. That is the issue, when Prots say symbol, they don't mean meaningless - most don't anyway. Most teach the heart must be right before partaking.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

---

I would agree that, for many protestants, taking communion is a very spiritual and emotional action. I would never call celebrating communion "meaningless"; however, it is NOT the same as receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus.

You're (total) quote (backing up two verses) from 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, is very central in the belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. No one gets sick or dies from a symbol. One must be free from mortal sin to validity receive the Eucharist else they have now incurred an additional mortal sin. This is called a Sacrilege.

Finally, I'll ask two questions:
Do you believe that the Catholic Church believed in the Real Presence from the beginning of the Church? If not, when did the Church begin this belief?
Given the quotes (Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) from my previous post, do you feel that they believed in the Real Presence?

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Really, the last two Popes have collectively -

• Called out the mafia for their sinful actions and told them to repent
• Affirmed that Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman
• Affirmed that woman cannot be ordained
• Affirmed a 100% Pro-Life massage (from womb to tomb)
• *No Abortion
• *No Euthanasia
• Affirmed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"

That doesn't sound like it's from the DNC.

How does your church stand on these topics?

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Really, the last two Popes have collectively -

• Called out the mafia for their sinful actions and told them to repent
• Affirmed that Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman
• Affirmed that woman cannot be ordained
• Affirmed a 100% Pro-Life massage (from womb to tomb)
• *No Abortion
• *No Euthanasia
• Affirmed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"

That doesn't sound like it's from the DNC.

How does your church stand on these topics?

---

What about Climate Change or Open Borders for America only?

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

It's most people on the political right. If you're on the left, it always seems like the pope is a Democrat. All human ideologies are products of a fallen world, and they don't tend to welcome correction.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Augustine on the 6th Chapter of John:

Quote:

---

It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing?

It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much.

For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

---

---

And this is showing... what?

You actually have to exposit towards a point you're making, not just copy and paste a passage, hoping someone will (mis)understand it the same way as you are.

From an NPR article.... Francis was known for his efforts to make the church more open to members of the LGBTQ+ community famously asking, "Who am I to judge?"

ScottS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Really, the last two Popes have collectively -

• Called out the mafia for their sinful actions and told them to repent
• Affirmed that Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman
• Affirmed that woman cannot be ordained
• Affirmed a 100% Pro-Life massage (from womb to tomb)
• *No Abortion
• *No Euthanasia
• Affirmed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"

That doesn't sound like it's from the DNC.

How does your church stand on these topics?

---

What about Climate Change or Open Borders for America only?

---

He said sovereign nations have the right to police their borders. Just treat people with dignity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Augustine on the 6th Chapter of John:

Quote:

---

It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing?

It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much.

For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

---

---

And this is showing... what?

You actually have to exposit towards a point you're making, not just copy and paste a passage, hoping someone will (mis)understand it the same way as you are.

---

It's showing what has been explained, and what you've demanded to see passages in support of. Your interpretation of "the flesh profits nothing" is erroneous, at least in Augustine's view. The body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a mere symbol. It's the actual means through which spiritual quickening occurs.

ScottS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Really, the last two Popes have collectively -

• Called out the mafia for their sinful actions and told them to repent
• Affirmed that Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman
• Affirmed that woman cannot be ordained
• Affirmed a 100% Pro-Life massage (from womb to tomb)
• *No Abortion
• *No Euthanasia
• Affirmed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"

That doesn't sound like it's from the DNC.

How does your church stand on these topics?

---

What about Climate Change or Open Borders for America only?

---

Actually, Pope Leo XIV said recently,

"No one has said that the United States should have open borders," Pope Leo said. "I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter."

Now, you didn't answer about where your church stands on the aforementioned topics.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Really, the last two Popes have collectively -

• Called out the mafia for their sinful actions and told them to repent
• Affirmed that Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman
• Affirmed that woman cannot be ordained
• Affirmed a 100% Pro-Life massage (from womb to tomb)
• *No Abortion
• *No Euthanasia
• Affirmed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"

That doesn't sound like it's from the DNC.

How does your church stand on these topics?

---

What about Climate Change or Open Borders for America only?

---

He said sovereign nations have the right to police their borders. Just treat people with dignity.

---

There it is.

ScottS said:

---

From an NPR article.... Francis was known for his efforts to make the church more open to members of the LGBTQ+ community famously asking, "Who am I to judge?"

---

He did say the quote. No questions about that; however, the quote was from an impromptu presser during a flight which the LGBTQ+ crowd (and media) tried to make it a rally cry or claim that the "Church was changing."

That is far from the case.

Pope Francis was asked about an alleged affair between a Vatican official and a Swiss Army captain. So as to not condemn a specific person in public, he responded with the following:

"But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say 'I have sinned in this,' the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. … If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?"

There is nothing theologically wrong in his quote.

Years later, Pope Francis explicitly clarified what he meant in the book The Name of God is Mercy:

"On that occasion I said this: If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" adding that "I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized."

That sounds like something Christ would do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Augustine on the 6th Chapter of John:

Quote:

---

It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing?

It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much.

For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

---

---

And this is showing... what?

You actually have to exposit towards a point you're making, not just copy and paste a passage, hoping someone will (mis)understand it the same way as you are.

---

It's showing what has been explained, and what you've demanded to see passages in support of. Your interpretation of "the flesh profits nothing" is erroneous, at least in Augustine's view. The body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a mere symbol. It's the actual means through which spiritual quickening occurs.

---

I asked for evidence that he believed in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence, which involves transubstantiation. Nothing you're showing does that. "The meaning of "the flesh profits nothing" was not what was in dispute. What was in dispute was whether Augustine believed the Eucharist bread that is consumed to literally be that flesh, even after he had just explicitly explained that such an understanding was "foolish".

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Most, if not all, would qualify as Dems on social issues outside of abortion. Even Ratzinger,

Justice and Charity as Complementary: In Deus Caritas Est, Benedict stressed that building a just social orderwhere each person receives what is dueis essential for all generations.Critique of Economic Globalization: In Caritas in Veritate, he warned against economic systems that prioritize profit over human dignity, calling for restraint, accountability, and new mechanisms to curb the excesses of global finance.Solidarity and the Common Good: He linked economic and environmental stewardship to solidarity, urging balance in resource use and recognizing climate change as both an ecological crisis and a moral injustice.Human Rights Grounded in Natural Law: Benedict distinguished natural law-based human rights from those derived from modern sociopolitical claims, affirming their moral priority

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Really, the last two Popes have collectively -

• Called out the mafia for their sinful actions and told them to repent
• Affirmed that Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman
• Affirmed that woman cannot be ordained
• Affirmed a 100% Pro-Life massage (from womb to tomb)
• *No Abortion
• *No Euthanasia
• Affirmed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"

That doesn't sound like it's from the DNC.

How does your church stand on these topics?

---

What about Climate Change or Open Borders for America only?

---

Actually, Pope Leo XIV said recently,

"No one has said that the United States should have open borders," Pope Leo said. "I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter."

Now, you didn't answer about where your church stands on the aforementioned topics.

---

From Google AI...

AI Overview


The last two popesPope Francis and his successor, Pope Leo XIVare widely recognized for their left-leaning or progressive stances on social, economic, and environmental issues, though their approaches differ in key ways. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The political and social profiles of these two pontiffs demonstrate clear left-leaning stances:
Pope Francis (20132025)
Pope Francis was renowned for reorienting the Catholic Church towards the "Global South" and championing progressive social justice: [1, 2, 3]

• Economic Critique: He fiercely criticized unfettered capitalism, neoliberalism, and consumerism, stating that modern economies often foster an "economy of exclusion" and neglect the poor.
• Environmentalism: In his groundbreaking 2015 encyclical Laudato si', he declared environmental protection and combating climate change to be moral imperatives.
• Migrant Rights: He made defending refugees, migrants, and marginalized communities a central pillar of his papacy.
• Pastoral Inclusivity: He adopted a much more conciliatory tone toward the LGBTQ+ community, famously denouncing laws that criminalize homosexuality and permitting priests to bless same-sex couples. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Pope Leo XIV (Elected 2025)
Pope Leo XIVborn Robert Francis Prevost, an American from Chicagosucceeded Pope Francis and brought a name choice and background that continues a progressive trajectory on social teachings: [1, 2, 3]

• Labor and Social Issues: By choosing the name Leo (in part a tribute to Pope Leo XIII, who wrote the foundational workers' rights document Rerum Novarum), he signaled a strong focus on working-class and social-welfare issues.
• Immigration: He has maintained a vocal defense of migrants and has frequently opposed the isolationist or nationalist stances of certain politicians.
• Environment: He shares his predecessor's commitment to sustainability and climate change, supporting the Vatican's transition to renewable energy and electric vehicles.
• Church Reform: He notably presided over revolutionary reforms during the Francis era, including a greater inclusion of women in the Vatican's official decision-making and voting structures. [1, 2, 3, 4]

While both popes have adopted liberal-leaning social and political stances, it is worth noting that they have both maintained traditional orthodox teachings when it comes to fundamental Catholic doctrines (such as the male-only priesthood and the sanctity of life). [1, 2, 3]

ScottS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?

---

Really, the last two Popes have collectively -

• Called out the mafia for their sinful actions and told them to repent
• Affirmed that Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman
• Affirmed that woman cannot be ordained
• Affirmed a 100% Pro-Life massage (from womb to tomb)
• *No Abortion
• *No Euthanasia
• Affirmed that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered"

That doesn't sound like it's from the DNC.

How does your church stand on these topics?

---

What about Climate Change or Open Borders for America only?

---

Actually, Pope Leo XIV said recently,

"No one has said that the United States should have open borders," Pope Leo said. "I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter."

Now, you didn't answer about where your church stands on the aforementioned topics.

---

From Google AI...

AI Overview


The last two popesPope Francis and his successor, Pope Leo XIVare widely recognized for their left-leaning or progressive stances on social, economic, and environmental issues, though their approaches differ in key ways. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The political and social profiles of these two pontiffs demonstrate clear left-leaning stances:
Pope Francis (20132025)
Pope Francis was renowned for reorienting the Catholic Church towards the "Global South" and championing progressive social justice: [1, 2, 3]

• Economic Critique: He fiercely criticized unfettered capitalism, neoliberalism, and consumerism, stating that modern economies often foster an "economy of exclusion" and neglect the poor.
• Environmentalism: In his groundbreaking 2015 encyclical Laudato si', he declared environmental protection and combating climate change to be moral imperatives.
• Migrant Rights: He made defending refugees, migrants, and marginalized communities a central pillar of his papacy.
• Pastoral Inclusivity: He adopted a much more conciliatory tone toward the LGBTQ+ community, famously denouncing laws that criminalize homosexuality and permitting priests to bless same-sex couples. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Pope Leo XIV (Elected 2025)
Pope Leo XIVborn Robert Francis Prevost, an American from Chicagosucceeded Pope Francis and brought a name choice and background that continues a progressive trajectory on social teachings: [1, 2, 3]

• Labor and Social Issues: By choosing the name Leo (in part a tribute to Pope Leo XIII, who wrote the foundational workers' rights document Rerum Novarum), he signaled a strong focus on working-class and social-welfare issues.
• Immigration: He has maintained a vocal defense of migrants and has frequently opposed the isolationist or nationalist stances of certain politicians.
• Environment: He shares his predecessor's commitment to sustainability and climate change, supporting the Vatican's transition to renewable energy and electric vehicles.
• Church Reform: He notably presided over revolutionary reforms during the Francis era, including a greater inclusion of women in the Vatican's official decision-making and voting structures. [1, 2, 3, 4]

While both popes have adopted liberal-leaning social and political stances, it is worth noting that they have both maintained traditional orthodox teachings when it comes to fundamental Catholic doctrines (such as the male-only priesthood and the sanctity of life). [1, 2, 3]

---

Are any of these things inherently bad? Besides LGBT, which the Church clearly doesn't support.

Speaking of gays, Trump loves em! He says it all the time. This guy is the face of the Republican Party and there's nothing conservative about him.

I will say I'm shocked to see a so-called "Christian" leader advocating for immigrants, laborers, and the poor.

Has he never read the Bible or anything?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Augustine on the 6th Chapter of John:

Quote:

---

It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing?

It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much.

For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

---

---

And this is showing... what?

You actually have to exposit towards a point you're making, not just copy and paste a passage, hoping someone will (mis)understand it the same way as you are.

---

It's showing what has been explained, and what you've demanded to see passages in support of. Your interpretation of "the flesh profits nothing" is erroneous, at least in Augustine's view. The body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a mere symbol. It's the actual means through which spiritual quickening occurs.

---

I asked for evidence that he believed in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence, which involves transubstantiation. Nothing you're showing does that. "The meaning of "the flesh profits nothing" was not what was in dispute. What was in dispute was whether Augustine believed the Eucharist bread that is consumed to literally be that flesh, even after he had just explicitly explained that such an understanding was "foolish".

---

Glad to see you've abandoned the "flesh profits nothing" argument. That is progress.

The foolish understanding is that Jesus' visible flesh would be distributed like meat from a supermarket. Not that his body would be present invisibly in the sacrament. Augustine makes this point in the bluntest of terms.

---

I've abandoned nothing. No one was arguing that the flesh profits nothing at all, which is what Augustine was arguing against.

Augustine makes absolutely NO point that Jesus' physical body would be present, visibly or invisibly, physicallly or metaphysically, in the substance of the Eucharist bread. You're making this completely unwarranted assertion from his statements that say nothing of the sort. This is what I've challenged all of you to present, and you still have not delivered. The only thing you've delivered is your constant confirmation bias and eisegesis of the conclusion you're already set on accepting.

If Augustine truly believed that it was "foolish" to believe that Jesus' body was to be broken apart and fed to his disciples in the literal sense.... then he most certainly would not have believed that in the Last Supper Jesus broke apart his literal body and fed it to his disciples in the literal sense. This isn't hard, folks.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I will say I'm shocked to see a so-called "Christian" leader advocating for immigrants, laborers, and the poor.

Has he never read the Bible or anything?

---

The problem is that the Pope is not advocating for immigrants, but for illegals.

Not for laborers, but for mobs.

Not for the poor, but for political special interests.

So he is not serving Christ, but personal political causes, and just painting them as moral as part of propaganda.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Augustine on the 6th Chapter of John:

Quote:

---

It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing?

It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much.

For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles' flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord's flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

---

---

And this is showing... what?

You actually have to exposit towards a point you're making, not just copy and paste a passage, hoping someone will (mis)understand it the same way as you are.

---

It's showing what has been explained, and what you've demanded to see passages in support of. Your interpretation of "the flesh profits nothing" is erroneous, at least in Augustine's view. The body of Christ in the Eucharist is not a mere symbol. It's the actual means through which spiritual quickening occurs.

---

I asked for evidence that he believed in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence, which involves transubstantiation. Nothing you're showing does that. "The meaning of "the flesh profits nothing" was not what was in dispute. What was in dispute was whether Augustine believed the Eucharist bread that is consumed to literally be that flesh, even after he had just explicitly explained that such an understanding was "foolish".

---

Glad to see you've abandoned the "flesh profits nothing" argument. That is progress.

The foolish understanding is that Jesus' visible flesh would be distributed like meat from a supermarket. Not that his body would be present invisibly in the sacrament. Augustine makes this point in the bluntest of terms.

---

I've abandoned nothing. No one was arguing that the flesh profits nothing at all, which is what Augustine was arguing.

Augustine makes absolutely NO point that Jesus' physical body would be present, visibly or invisibly, physicallly or metaphysically, in the substance of the Eucharist bread. You're making this completely unwarranted assertion from his statements that say nothing of the sort. This is what I've challenged all of you to present, and you still have not delivered. The only thing you've delivered is your constant confirmation bias and eisegesis of the conclusion you're already set on accepting.

If Augustine truly believed that it was "foolish" to believe that Jesus' body was to be broken apart and fed to his disciples in the literal sense.... then he most certainly would not have believed that in the Last Supper Jesus broke apart his literal body and fed it to his disciples in the literal sense. This isn't hard, folks.

---

I've really been trying not to say this, and I hope it doesn't come across in a hostile manner, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about. I'll just again encourage you to read some other Catholic sources if you're interested, and maybe you'll find one that explains it better. Going to leave it there for now.

---

How in the world is this so hard for you guys? I'm literally in shock at how poorly you guys read, comprehend, and think. And it's maddening that you think I'M the one that doesn't know what he's talking about. WOW.

Please read the excerpts that you provided again. Augustine is reiterating the fact that the carnal, literal understanding of "eating Jesus' flesh", i.e. the literal, physical eating of his literal flesh, is what is unprofitable for attaining eternal life. Jesus' wasn't meaning that his literal flesh had no profit whatsoever, because in the sense that it was the vessel through which Jesus came to us and through which he voiced his word to us, without which we couldn't receive eternal life, it was undoubtedly profitable. But Jesus was focusing on their carnal understanding of physically eating his literal flesh as being the wrong understanding. Augustine is saying that obviously, what Jesus meant by "eating his flesh" had a deeper, spiritual meaning and had nothing to do whatsoever with physically eating.

So then the question for you becomes - why then, given all that, would Augustine believe that in the Eucharist, you ARE physically eating Jesus' literal flesh, after he had just got done explaining that this was unprofitable? The literal eating of Jesus' physical flesh is the RC view of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The view is not merely that Jesus' body is "invisibly present in the sacrament", as you so vaguely state it. You're still not committing to the real, physical component of the RC view of the Real Presence, you seem as if you're continually hedging on that. Could it be that you yourself don't even agree with (or truly understand) the official RC view?

And furthermore, nowhere in your excerpt, or anywhere else in his writings for that matter, is Augustine saying that the Eucharist bread IS the literal flesh of Jesus or that Jesus' body is "present", invisibly or visibly, or in any form, within the substance of the Eucharist bread. This is completely reading that into the passage, and all other passages. Here, Augustine isn't even say ANYTHING about the Eucharist, let alone anything about the Eucharist bread!

If I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, then okay, SHOW ME FROM YOUR EXCERPTS where Augustine is even coming close to saying that the literal flesh of Jesus is in or becomes - invisibly, visibly, physically, or metaphysically - the substance of the Eucharist bread. That was the challenge. And what you've provided, it's just not there.

Seriously - if you can't understand this basic logic: If Augustine believed it is foolish to think that Jesus was literally going to give his literal flesh for people to physically eat, then it certainly means he didn't believe Jesus gave his disciples his literal flesh to physically eat in the Last Supper (the RC view of the Real Presence) - then I just don't know what else to say to you. You have some kind of mental problem.

Apparently, the RC's here need a little remediating of Augustine's words given earlier.
Here's remediation #1:

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53). This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."

- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16.


Okay, Roman Catholics, now think with me. THINK.

Given Augustine's own interpretive hermeneutic he details above, Jesus enjoining his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Last Supper is enjoining the same crime and vice he's talking about in John chapter 6. Therefore, Augustine is saying that Jesus' words in the Last Supper are in the same way figurative, NOT literal. Therefore, Augustine does not believe in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence.

This isn't hard, folks. It just takes reading and comprehending with honesty and intelligence. Remediation #2 tomorrow.