BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

some of yall be really weird and hung up on religious minutia . Aren't we all pulling for the same thing? I don't get it. Love my Catholic bros and sis's. why sweat the small stuff. Yall don't have bigger fish to fry?

---

i am with JR.. fish fry tomorrow! TGIF!

---

You agree with this? Hmm....

---

really?

I agreed that a fish fry was a great idea

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholics, here's what we've established so far:

1. Augustine did not believe in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence.

2. Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Newman, admits that sola scriptura was a belief and practice of the early church.

So, the common refrain from Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians is that these Protestant views are mere recent "inventions" of the Reformation that do not trace back to the original, apostolic church. Obviously, the two items above seriously challenge, if not completely debunk, the RC and Orthodox position. Can anyone challenge this assertion?

---

You might want to go back and re-read the thread. We'll wait.

---

If you disagree, then answer my challenge. I'll wait.

You might want to get your own church's view on Real Presence straight first, though.

I actually agree with you.

But, such is the definition of the reformation. Arguing minutia.

FLBear5630 said:

---

I actually agree with you.

But, such is the definition of the reformation. Arguing minutia.

---

^^^ Minimization as a defense mechanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology)

See what i mean JR?

They get off on it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholics, here's what we've established so far:

1. Augustine did not believe in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence.

2. Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Newman, admits that sola scriptura was a belief and practice of the early church.

So, the common refrain from Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians is that these Protestant views are mere recent "inventions" of the Reformation that do not trace back to the original, apostolic church. Obviously, the two items above seriously challenge, if not completely debunk, the RC and Orthodox position. Can anyone challenge this assertion?

I'm sure the issue isn't settled with Roman Catholics regarding Augustine, so this is what I would like to offer: give me the ONE statement from Augustine that you think BEST makes your case against mine. ONE at a time, please, and please provide the whole excerpt so we can look at it in context. We can go through multiple quotes, but just one at a time. I know that many of you gave me all sorts of links and quotes from Augustine that they used to argue that Augustine DID believe in the RC view of the Real Presence, but there were too many to respond to individually. But I would like to do that now, to argue my case more specifically. To recap my argument, in those quotes, Augustine was merely repeating the same figurative style when referring to the Eucharist that he said Jesus was speaking in. The belief from Roman Catholics here that he was speaking literally is the result of them reading literalism into it due to confirmation bias. We can explore that contention here and now, if anyone is game.

Regarding the Newman quote, if anyone wants to argue that Newman did NOT believe that sola scriptura was the apparent practice and belief of the ancient church, you're also welcome to try to make that argument as well. That's gonna be a hard case to make, though, since Newman was pretty clear and explicity about that, but you're welcome to try.

So any takers? Note: silly and time-wasting nonsense is not going to be answered. Serious arguments only, please.

---

Anyone?

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

some of yall be really weird and hung up on religious minutia . Aren't we all pulling for the same thing? I don't get it. Love my Catholic bros and sis's. why sweat the small stuff. Yall don't have bigger fish to fry?

---

i am with JR.. fish fry tomorrow! TGIF!

---

You agree with this? Hmm....

---

really?

I agreed that a fish fry was a great idea

---

And you were dismissive and playful with a very bad sentiment being expressed.

Frivolity over what's serious isn't really going to help them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

some of yall be really weird and hung up on religious minutia . Aren't we all pulling for the same thing? I don't get it. Love my Catholic bros and sis's. why sweat the small stuff. Yall don't have bigger fish to fry?

---

i am with JR.. fish fry tomorrow! TGIF!

---

You agree with this? Hmm....

---

really?

I agreed that a fish fry was a great idea

---

And you were dismissive and playful with a very bad sentiment being expressed.

Frivolity over what's serious isn't really going to help them.

---

JR got this part right, love your neighbor

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
John 15:12

Let all that you do be done in love.
1 Corinthians 16:14

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
1 Peter 4:8

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.
1 Corinthians 13:4-5

The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:31

Love trumps all things, teach in love, rebuke in love, praise in love, grieve in love..

FLBear5630 said:

---

See what i mean JR?

They get off on it.

---

I find it very bizarre.

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

See what i mean JR?

They get off on it.

---

I find it very bizarre.

---

Me too.

If they are looking to evangelize, there are plenty of people that don't believe at all, are non-Christians, or athiest where they can do what they do. But, to sit for days arguing minutia with Christians over what St Augustine meant in 450 AD over real presence seem bizarre.

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

some of yall be really weird and hung up on religious minutia . Aren't we all pulling for the same thing? I don't get it. Love my Catholic bros and sis's. why sweat the small stuff. Yall don't have bigger fish to fry?

---

i am with JR.. fish fry tomorrow! TGIF!

---

You agree with this? Hmm....

---

really?

I agreed that a fish fry was a great idea

---

And you were dismissive and playful with a very bad sentiment being expressed.

Frivolity over what's serious isn't really going to help them.

---

JR got this part right, love your neighbor

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
John 15:12

Let all that you do be done in love.
1 Corinthians 16:14

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
1 Peter 4:8

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.
1 Corinthians 13:4-5

The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:31

Love trumps all things, teach in love, rebuke in love, praise in love, grieve in love..

---

Is it really love to encourage people in their errant beliefs?

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

See what i mean JR?

They get off on it.

---

I find it very bizarre.

---

Me too.

If they are looking to evangelize, there are plenty of people that don't believe at all, are non-Christians, or athiest where they can do what they do. But, to sit for days arguing minutia with Christians over what St Augustine meant in 450 AD over real presence seem bizarre.

---

I'm pretty sure that showing Roman Catholics something that their church was wrong about is big deal. It goes to the heart of their church's authority claims. I'm not at all surprised that you either can't grasp this or that you've chosen to minimize it as way to deal with the cognitive dissonance it resulted in. I mean, obviously you didn't consider it unimportant "minutia" when you were vehemently defending your church's view in post after post. Funny how irrelevant it suddenly all became after you were shown direct evidence that you couldn't argue against.

This post is for those who care to know the truth about Augustine's view on the Eucharist. Below is his sermon, "Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", sermon 272. In it, Augustine explains what is meant by the Eucharist bread being the body of Christ, and the wine being his blood. Now, if there was any better time for Augustine to express his agreement with the Roman Catholic Church's view on the "Real Presence", it would certainly be here. I have posted the entire sermon so that there can't be any claims of it being "out of context":

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand." Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. **** So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many? Remember: bread doesn't come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God's singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God's power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God's own son Jesus Christ. Amen!"

As you can see in his sermon, Augustine is directly asking the question: how is the bread Jesus' body? And how is the wine Jesus' blood? If there was any time for Augustine to explain that the bread and wine are the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus, you would think he would do so here. But does he?

Absolutely not! What he's saying is that the bread and wine have a sacramental, spiritual meaning, and understanding it yields spiritual fruit. He's saying that the bread is Jesus' body, in that it resembles/represents us Christians being together in one body, Jesus' body, in the same way many individual grains are put together to make one bread. He is saying that Christians are looking at themselves when they look at the bread! Does that mean then, that all our bodies are transubstantiated into the bread? See how ridiculous that is? He says the same thing about the wine, too. This clearly is a spiritualistic, symbolic view of the Eucharist bread and wine.

There is absolutely nothing in that sermon that even comes close to suggesting that Augustine believed in the Eucharist bread and wine being the transubstantiated flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, or that the bread and wine even contains Jesus' flesh and blood in a spiritual, metaphysical sense within its elements. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of the Real Presence simply can NOT be derived from Augustine's beliefs.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Avoiding what? Augustine believed in the real presence. Source Augustinian Order he founded.
Here is an article on it.

https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/st-augustines-belief-in-the-real-presence/
Pretty straight forward. Done.

You disagree, imagine that! Noted.

Next....

---

So, your link included a quote from Augustine from that very sermon (Sermon 272) that I posted: "What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

Now that you have the whole sermon in front of you, do you see how this quote was taken completely out of context, and it was actually Augustine speaking in figurative/spiritual terms rather than literal/physical?

So, folks - who's really the one taking things out of context? NOW do you see the problem with all the "evidence" in the link that was given? So how do you know whether your authority sources like the Augustinian Order are correct? Are you even willing to check them against the primary sources they cite? This is the problem I see with most Roman Catholics. They aren't willing to do this and would rather just blindly swallow what they're told by their superiors.

Gee, who should I believe? The Augustinian Order who has made Augustine's writings central to their mission for over 1,000 years or the guy on the guy on SicEm?

Hmmm, my understanding of his writings aligns with the Augustinian Order and the Vatican, but SicEm guy doesn't agree. He say look at the primary source, which i guess he has and the Vatican doesn't? What should I do?

What you recommend is actually pretty comical. I am going to believe your source over the Vatican's? Yours is more original than the Vatican library?

You see where this starts to fall apart? You are more expert than the Augustine Order in interpreting Augustine's writings and your "primary source" is better than the Vatican's?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Gee, who should I believe? The Augustinian Order who has made Augustine's writings central to their mission for over 1,000 years or the guy on the guy on SicEm?

Hmmm, my understanding of his writings aligns with the Augustinian Order and the Vatican, but SicEm guy doesn't agree. He say look at the primary source, which i guess he has and the Vatican doesn't? What should I do?

What you recommend is actually pretty comical. I am going to believe your source over the Vatican's? Yours is more original than the Vatican library?

You see where this starts to fall apart? You are more expert than the Augustine Order in interpreting Augustine's writings and your "primary source" is better than the Vatican's?

---

It's "comical" to look at the primary source for yourself, and think and reason for yourself? What is incorrect with my reasoning with the writing from Augustine that is now directly in front of your face? Show me, and tell me. HOW can an "Augustinian Order" reason from that writing that Augustine believed in transubstantiation? Do you even know their reasoning? Do you even care? Contrary to what you claim, there isn't any "your understanding" of his writings. You're simply going by your authority sources' understanding.

This is just so sad. This is the thinking of someone who is mind-trapped in a cult, who's given themselves over to fallible men who claim authority, instead of doing what Jesus said to do, which is "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57)

Roman Catholics are at a point where if their Church tells them the sky is purple, that's what they'll believe, even if someone were to pull them by their shirt outside, point at the sky, and show them with their own eyes that it's blue. Except what's REALLY strange is that you don't even believe in your Church's teachings - you want them to bless gay couples in the church, you don't believe the apostle Paul's writings are inspired, and you don't even believe in their dogmas - and yet, strangely enough, here you are defending the Church more than any other Catholic, and professing an undying trust in Catholic authorities to tell you what Augustine's writings say. Don't you think there's something really off with that? It's only showing how much BS there is in Roman Catholicism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This post is for those who care to know the truth about Augustine's view on the Eucharist. Below is his sermon, "Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", sermon 272. In it, Augustine explains what is meant by the Eucharist bread being the body of Christ, and the wine being his blood. Now, if there was any better time for Augustine to express his agreement with the Roman Catholic Church's view on the "Real Presence", it would certainly be here. I have posted the entire sermon so that there can't be any claims of it being "out of context":

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand." Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. **** So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many? Remember: bread doesn't come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God's singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God's power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God's own son Jesus Christ. Amen!"

---

The message is quite consistent with Catholic belief. You're just reading your "symbolic" interpretation into it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This post is for those who care to know the truth about Augustine's view on the Eucharist. Below is his sermon, "Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", sermon 272. In it, Augustine explains what is meant by the Eucharist bread being the body of Christ, and the wine being his blood. Now, if there was any better time for Augustine to express his agreement with the Roman Catholic Church's view on the "Real Presence", it would certainly be here. I have posted the entire sermon so that there can't be any claims of it being "out of context":

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand." Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. **** So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many? Remember: bread doesn't come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God's singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God's power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God's own son Jesus Christ. Amen!"

---

The message is quite consistent with Catholic belief. You're just reading your "symbolic" interpretation into it.

---

Where in the world in this message do you get that he believed in transubstantiation? Everything he said is the symbolic/spiritualistic view.

My God, you guys are just resorting to flat out lying.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This post is for those who care to know the truth about Augustine's view on the Eucharist. Below is his sermon, "Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", sermon 272. In it, Augustine explains what is meant by the Eucharist bread being the body of Christ, and the wine being his blood. Now, if there was any better time for Augustine to express his agreement with the Roman Catholic Church's view on the "Real Presence", it would certainly be here. I have posted the entire sermon so that there can't be any claims of it being "out of context":

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand." Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. **** So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many? Remember: bread doesn't come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God's singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God's power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God's own son Jesus Christ. Amen!"

---

The message is quite consistent with Catholic belief. You're just reading your "symbolic" interpretation into it.

---

Where in the world in this message do you get that he believed in transubstantiation? Everything he said is the symbolic/spiritualistic view.

My God, you guys are just resorting to flat out lying.

---

You're the one who equates "spiritual" with "symbolic" and "actual" with "physical." It's already been explained why that's wrong in the Catholic view.

As usual this has become a discussion of what you insist Catholics must believe instead of what we actually do believe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This post is for those who care to know the truth about Augustine's view on the Eucharist. Below is his sermon, "Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", sermon 272. In it, Augustine explains what is meant by the Eucharist bread being the body of Christ, and the wine being his blood. Now, if there was any better time for Augustine to express his agreement with the Roman Catholic Church's view on the "Real Presence", it would certainly be here. I have posted the entire sermon so that there can't be any claims of it being "out of context":

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand." Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. **** So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many? Remember: bread doesn't come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God's singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God's power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God's own son Jesus Christ. Amen!"

---

The message is quite consistent with Catholic belief. You're just reading your "symbolic" interpretation into it.

---

Where in the world in this message do you get that he believed in transubstantiation? Everything he said is the symbolic/spiritualistic view.

My God, you guys are just resorting to flat out lying.

---

You're the one who equates "spiritual" with "symbolic" and "actual" with "physical." It's already been explained why that's wrong in the Catholic view.

As usual this has become a discussion of what you insist Catholics must believe instead of what we actually do believe.

---

Rather, this is yet another discussion where you BS your way through an argument.

Transubstantiation IS what you Roman Catholics believe. We established earlier that you don't even understand your own church's view.

And "spiritual" is a symbolic meaning. The bread and wine are physical representations of a spiritual truth, just as Augustine said.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This post is for those who care to know the truth about Augustine's view on the Eucharist. Below is his sermon, "Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", sermon 272. In it, Augustine explains what is meant by the Eucharist bread being the body of Christ, and the wine being his blood. Now, if there was any better time for Augustine to express his agreement with the Roman Catholic Church's view on the "Real Presence", it would certainly be here. I have posted the entire sermon so that there can't be any claims of it being "out of context":

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand." Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. **** So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many? Remember: bread doesn't come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God's singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God's power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God's own son Jesus Christ. Amen!"

---

The message is quite consistent with Catholic belief. You're just reading your "symbolic" interpretation into it.

---

Where in the world in this message do you get that he believed in transubstantiation? Everything he said is the symbolic/spiritualistic view.

My God, you guys are just resorting to flat out lying.

---

You're the one who equates "spiritual" with "symbolic" and "actual" with "physical." It's already been explained why that's wrong in the Catholic view.

As usual this has become a discussion of what you insist Catholics must believe instead of what we actually do believe.

---

Rather, this is yet another discussion where you BS your way through an argument.

Transubstantiation IS what you Roman Catholics believe. We established earlier that you don't even understand your own church's view.

And "spiritual" is a symbolic meaning. The bread and wine are physical representations of a spiritual truth, just as Augustine said.

---

I mean that's not what Augustine meant, and it's not what his audience heard...but other than that I'm sure you're 100% right.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This post is for those who care to know the truth about Augustine's view on the Eucharist. Below is his sermon, "Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", sermon 272. In it, Augustine explains what is meant by the Eucharist bread being the body of Christ, and the wine being his blood. Now, if there was any better time for Augustine to express his agreement with the Roman Catholic Church's view on the "Real Presence", it would certainly be here. I have posted the entire sermon so that there can't be any claims of it being "out of context":

"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand." Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. **** So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: "You are the body of Christ, member for member." [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear "The body of Christ", you reply "Amen." Be a member of Christ's body, then, so that your "Amen" may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: "The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body." [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. "One bread," he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the "one body," formed from many? Remember: bread doesn't come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were "ground." When you were baptized, you were "leavened." When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were "baked." Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form "a single heart and mind in God" [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God's singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God's power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God's own son Jesus Christ. Amen!"

---

The message is quite consistent with Catholic belief. You're just reading your "symbolic" interpretation into it.

---

Where in the world in this message do you get that he believed in transubstantiation? Everything he said is the symbolic/spiritualistic view.

My God, you guys are just resorting to flat out lying.

---

You're the one who equates "spiritual" with "symbolic" and "actual" with "physical." It's already been explained why that's wrong in the Catholic view.

As usual this has become a discussion of what you insist Catholics must believe instead of what we actually do believe.

---

Rather, this is yet another discussion where you BS your way through an argument.

Transubstantiation IS what you Roman Catholics believe. We established earlier that you don't even understand your own church's view.

And "spiritual" is a symbolic meaning. The bread and wine are physical representations of a spiritual truth, just as Augustine said.

---

I mean that's not what Augustine meant, and it's not what his audience heard...

---

Again, as always, you're strong on empty assertion, but exceedingly weak on substance.

"...these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit."

"Grasped", not "eaten". Folks, a physical object meant to convey an understanding of a spiritual truth is called a symbol.

Just that your wrong. You eff-d it all up. You center your belief on one of Augustine's sermons on the heresy of cannibalism and stretch it to mean he was basically John Wesley using grape juice and ritz crackers as symbols. This is where context comes in, something you dont seem to want to give any credence. You are so caught up in finding tidbits of letters that show an inconsistency that you miss the entire message.

You know this whole episode is a great illustration why Sola Scriptura doesnt work, you need the context the Church history and traditions give. You have to look at the whole to understand and not be led astray like you are.

Go back and read the links, they will show you where you went wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, as always, you're strong on empty assertion, but exceedingly weak on substance.

"...these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit."

"Grasped", not "eaten". Folks, a physical object meant to convey an understanding of a spiritual truth is called a symbol.

---

Dude, you are stretching more than Stretch Armstong. You are reaching more than a midget in an elevator trying to get to the penthouse.

First, this sermon was written to infantes (neophytes, the newly baptized) to explain the mystery of the Eucharist. On the altar, says Augustine, we see bread and wine. But, according to faith, they are the Body and Blood of Christ.

This is catechetical preaching not a theological treatise. Augustine is teaching brand-new Christians how to see the Eucharist with the eyes of faith for the very first time.

Please notice, that Augustine says,

For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood.

Now let's carefully look at your "gotcha" phrase that you bolded - So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?"

Your claim here is that Augustine, himself, is asking how this is possible. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me. If I am correct, then you have failed to closely read what is going on in the passage.

Let's dive deeper into it …

Color would be so much easier to help illustrate the point; however, I will do my best to demonstrate how this is a inner dialogue that Augustine is having with those neophytes.

Augustine:
"What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, "Unless you believe, you will not understand." [Is. 7.9; Septuagint]

So you can say to me,

Neophyte: "You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand."

Augustine: Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising:

Neophyte: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God's right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?"

Augustine: My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit.

Now, you claim that "sacramental" means spiritual. This is a grave misunderstanding of what a sacrament is. It is an outward sign of an invisible grace that it signifies. It takes matter and form for that sacrament. In baptism, the matter is the water. The form is the Trinitarian formula. The effect, or grace, is the rebirth in the Holy Spirit and being adopted into God's family.

In the Eucharist, the matter is the bread and wine, the form is the words of consecration. The effect, or grace, is the transubstantiation of those elements into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

You are reading your protestant view into this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If there was any time for Augustine to explain that the bread and wine are the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus, you would think he would do so here. But does he?

---

In Sermon 227 written to the same audience of new Catholics, just weeks earlier Augustine states clearly:
"That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ."

Finally, please note that "spiritual" does NOT mean symbolic. It does not mean immaterial. It does not mean less real.

This is a modern confusion not a classical one. It smuggles in a philosophical assumption that spirit and matter are opposites, and that "spiritual" therefore means "not physical" or "not real."

St. Paul uses pneumatikos repeatedly and never once does he mean "merely symbolic":
"They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink" (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)
Referring to the actual manna and actual water from the rock in the desert. Real food. Real water. Called "spiritual" because they were given by God and pointed to Christ.
"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44)
The resurrection body is called "spiritual." Does Paul mean the resurrection body is symbolic or imaginary? Of course not. He means it is transformed and animated by the Holy Spirit more real, not less.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Just that your wrong. You eff-d it all up. You center your belief on one of Augustine's sermons on the heresy of cannibalism and stretch it to mean he was basically John Wesley using grape juice and ritz crackers as symbols. This is where context comes in, something you dont seem to want to give any credence. You are so caught up in finding tidbits of letters that show an inconsistency that you miss the entire message.

You know this whole episode is a great illustration why Sola Scriptura doesnt work, you need the context the Church history and traditions give. You have to look at the whole to understand and not be led astray like you are.

Go back and read the links, they will show you where you went wrong.

---

I DID read the links. I even SHOWED YOU one of them in its FULL CONTEXT (you know, what you accused me of not doing) that CLEARLY shows it was being taken out of context by your Roman Catholic source.

I can likely do the SAME THING for any other quote you provide. That's why I challenged you to provide me with your BEST ONE.

Stop just saying I'm wrong, and prove it. Go ahead, I'm challenging you. Answer my challenge. Give me your BEST EVIDENCE that I'm wrong.

What are you afraid of?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, as always, you're strong on empty assertion, but exceedingly weak on substance.

"...these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit."

"Grasped", not "eaten". Folks, a physical object meant to convey an understanding of a spiritual truth is called a symbol.

---

Dude, you are stretching more than Stretch Armstong. You are reaching more than a midget in an elevator trying to get to the penthouse.

First, this sermon was written to infantes (neophytes, the newly baptized) to explain the mystery of the Eucharist. On the altar, says Augustine, we see bread and wine. But, according to faith, they are the Body and Blood of Christ.

This is catechetical preaching not a theological treatise. Augustine is teaching brand-new Christians how to see the Eucharist with the eyes of faith for the very first time.

Please notice, that Augustine says,

For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood.

---

I only needed to read this far.

The very quote you just referenced was what I had JUST showed, by giving it in it's FULL CONTEXT in Augustine's sermon, that Augustine explicitly explained that this had a spiritual/symbolic meaning. For heaven's sake, read that sermon and THINK, guys, THINK.

Good lord, you guys are dense, brick walls.

Afraid?

I can't change your mind. You have a schrick to attack Catholicism. It is your thing. You will never admit you are wrong. Coke Bear just gave you volumes of text. I linked you to articles. Sam went for days. You will not accept anything. It is a you issue, not an us issue.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Afraid?

I can't change your mind. You have a schrick to attack Catholicism. It is your thing. You will never admit you are wrong. Coke Bear just gave you volumes of text. I linked you to articles. Sam went for days. You will not accept anything. It is a you issue, not an us issue.

---

If you're not afraid, then why don't you answer my challenge? I already showed you a direct example from your "volumes of text" and articles how that quote was taken out of context, and that it supported my view, not yours. Why would I admit I'm wrong, if you haven't shown me that I'm wrong? Why would I change my mind, if all your "evidence" is flawed, like what I showed above?

So, I'm offering to go down the entire list that you guys have, if I have to. So what are you waiting for? Give me your next best example of an Augustine reference that shows that I'm wrong and you're right. I'm waiting. So far, I'm only seeing you dodge and stall.

Geez, give it a rest. You are wrong. Rehashing it over and over screaming he used the word "symbol" once doesn't change the overall answer. You are cherry picking words and then screaming "see" without understanding the whole context or point.

You know, you can believe your interpretation without the world agreeing. Religion is a personal thing. If it makes you feel better to believe Augustine didn't believe in the true presence or that Luther wanted more than to just be able to screw his Nun buddy or kiss up to German royalty it is your right. Believe what you want, i will stick with the Church.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Geez, give it a rest. You are wrong. Rehashing it over and over screaming he used the word "symbol" once doesn't change the overall answer. You are cherry picking words and then screaming "see" without understanding the whole context or point.

You know, you can believe your interpretation without the world agreeing. Religion is a personal thing. If it makes you feel better to believe Augustine didn't believe in the true presence or that Luther wanted more than to just be able to screw his Nun buddy or kiss up to German royalty it is your right. Believe what you want, i will stick with the Church.

---

If you're still thinking I'm "cherry picking words" when I just gave you Augustine's WHOLE SERMON and showed you I was right, that it was YOU who was taking him out of context, then you are on a whole different level of dishonest and stupid.

You obviously can't back up your case with actual facts and evidence. That's why you continue to cower from my challenge. If you're church is right, and I'm wrong, you'd think you could produce even ONE piece of evidence.

Anyone else want to give it a try me? Contrary to what this person thinks, people reading this thread know what it means when someone constantly dodges a challenge.

You are just plain wrong on this. Augustine is known for defending the literal presence. Really I can't see how you can be so wrong. Well I guess I can if you are hanging your whole view on one section of one sermon.

But keep fighting. Dream, the impossible dream... Ti do the impossible deed...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I only needed to read this far.

The very quote you just referenced was what I had JUST showed, by giving it in it's FULL CONTEXT in Augustine's sermon, that Augustine explicitly explained that this had a spiritual/symbolic meaning. For heaven's sake, read that sermon and THINK, guys, THINK.

Good lord, you guys are dense, brick walls.

---

The bolded sentence is YOUR issue.

That seems to me as being either intellectually lazy or sinfully prideful.

You didn't read further and you completely missed the fact that SPIRITUAL does NOT mean SYMBOLIC.

I provided a philosophical framework for this as well as provided two quotes from St. Paul himself where he uses "spiritual" (pneumatikos) and it never means "symbolic."

You have completely changed the meaning of a word to fit your preconceived notion rather than objectively looking at what the actual meaning of the word and the passage is.

Bonus: I also provided an answer as to why St Augustine didn't "explain that the bread and wine are the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus" in that specific sermon.

I would humbly ask you to go back and read my enter response.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are just plain wrong on this. Augustine is known for defending the literal presence. Really I can't see how you can be so wrong. Well I guess I can if you are hanging your whole view on one section of one sermon.

But keep fighting. Dream, the impossible dream... Ti do the impossible deed...

---

All I'm hearing is your assertion that I'm wrong. You have provided ZERO to show it. I, on the other hand, have directly demonstrated how your quote from Augustine that you believe "defended the literal presence", was taken completely out of context.

You guys think this is about me trying to convince you. It's only partially that. I'm also showing how brainwashed you guys are, that you'd even deny the plain evidence that is in front of your faces. You guys simply can not be honest with the source material, or even honest with yourselves. And that goes to show the spirit behind Roman Catholicism, and just how wrong it is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Afraid?

I can't change your mind. You have a schrick to attack Catholicism. It is your thing. You will never admit you are wrong. Coke Bear just gave you volumes of text. I linked you to articles. Sam went for days. You will not accept anything. It is a you issue, not an us issue.

---

If you're not afraid, then why don't you answer my challenge? I already showed you a direct example from your "volumes of text" and articles how that quote was taken out of context, and that it supported my view, not yours. Why would I admit I'm wrong, if you haven't shown me that I'm wrong? Why would I change my mind, if all your "evidence" is flawed, like what I showed above?

So, I'm offering to go down the entire list that you guys have, if I have to. So what are you waiting for? Give me your next best example of an Augustine reference that shows that I'm wrong and you're right. I'm waiting. So far, I'm only seeing you dodge and stall.

---