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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

Sadly, your post won't stop him from posting the same tired falsehoods.

ScottS said:

---

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]

---

Here in lies the issues with Americans and their critique of Catholism.

The Catholic Church does NOT fall into the Left/Right, Democrat/Republican, or Liberal/Conservative camps.

She is Catholic. She is equal parts (true) social justice (helping the poor, marginalized, the sick and dying while still denouncing communism/socialism) and preserving the faith (pro-life and anti-same-sex "marriage").

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Once again (surprised face /s)

You have completely misunderstood/misrepresented what Augustine is doing this this passage.

Augustine is laying out a hermeneutical principle a rule for reading Scripture. He is not writing a treatise on the Eucharist. He is teaching preachers and students how to interpret figurative versus literal language in the Bible.
His rule is simple:

• If a Scriptural command promotes virtue read it literally
• If a Scriptural command seems to promote a crime or vice it is figurative, and look for the deeper meaning

When Augustine calls John 6:53 "figurative," he does not mean it is merely symbolic or that nothing real is happening. In Augustine's theological vocabulary, a "figure" (Latin: figura) points to and participates in a deeper reality. A figure is not a falsehood it is a sign that truly conveys what it signifies.

This is a crucial distinction that Protestant interpretations frequently miss. Augustine's concept of sacrament is precisely that: a visible sign of an invisible grace that truly conveys that grace.

Even in this very passage, Augustine says the figure enjoins:

• A share (communicandem) in the sufferings of Christ
• A memorial (in memoria) of His flesh being wounded and crucified

The Latin word communicandem is the root of communicant one who receives Communion. Augustine is saying participation in Christ's Passion is made real through the Eucharist, not bypassed by it.

Whatever anti-Catholic book you are getting these quotes from, I would strongly suggest that return it and get your money back from Amazon. Please try to read and understand these quotes in context without your anti-Catholic goggles firmly pressed into your face.

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Once again (surprised face /s)

You have completely misunderstood/misrepresented what Augustine is doing this this passage.

Augustine is laying out a hermeneutical principle a rule for reading Scripture. He is not writing a treatise on the Eucharist. He is teaching preachers and students how to interpret figurative versus literal language in the Bible.
His rule is simple:

• If a Scriptural command promotes virtue read it literally
• If a Scriptural command seems to promote a crime or vice it is figurative, and look for the deeper meaning

When Augustine calls John 6:53 "figurative," he does not mean it is merely symbolic or that nothing real is happening. In Augustine's theological vocabulary, a "figure" (Latin: figura) points to and participates in a deeper reality. A figure is not a falsehood it is a sign that truly conveys what it signifies.

This is a crucial distinction that Protestant interpretations frequently miss. Augustine's concept of sacrament is precisely that: a visible sign of an invisible grace that truly conveys that grace.

Even in this very passage, Augustine says the figure enjoins:

• A share (communicandem) in the sufferings of Christ
• A memorial (in memoria) of His flesh being wounded and crucified

The Latin word communicandem is the root of communicant one who receives Communion. Augustine is saying participation in Christ's Passion is made real through the Eucharist, not bypassed by it.

Whatever anti-Catholic book you are getting these quotes from, I would strongly suggest that return it and get your money back from Amazon. Please try to read and understand these quotes in context without your anti-Catholic goggles firmly pressed into your face.

---

Your mind is stuck on the idea that by claiming something is a "symbol", it is "meaningless" or that "nothing happens". You're even going as far as saying that calling something a "figure" is calling it a falsehood. If you want to finally learn what a "strawman" really is, THIS is exactly it.

A symbol is merely a physical representation of something else. The physical representation is NOT the real thing being signified, rather it harkens back to a reminder or conjures up a deeper understanding of the reality of that which it signifies, like a spiritual meaning or reality. The point is, that reality is NOT the physical object (the symbol) itself, nor does that object contain the reality within itself. Herein lies the repeated assumption that you and all your RC colleagues make constantly regarding Augustine - that by calling Jesus' statement "eat my flesh and drink my blood" figurative, Augustine believes it to mean that the reality, whether it is a memorial or even a spiritual reality, is CONTAINED within the substance of the Eucharist bread and wine. This is the logical leap across a canyon that I have repeatedly challenged you guys to provide the specific evidence for. Yet, none of you have. You think you have, but when you read your "evidence" honestly and intelligently, it says nothing of the sort. Rather, you're fully reading your preconceived conclusion into it.

Augustine clearly speaks in terms of the symbolism of the Eucharist bread and wine, NOT as the bread and wine becoming that reality within itself. You've even pointed this out yourself, where Augustine says that the sacrament of the Eucharist is a "sharing of the sufferings" for the communicant, which is obvioulsy figurative and symbolic, because when we eat the bread we surely aren't suffering crucifixion, pain, and death or anything like that. And where he says that it is a "memoriam" of Jesus' sacrifice for us. Clearly, that's a symbol. I've also given you many other citations from Augustine, such as when he states that the Eucharist is a "visible" practice that must be "understood" spiritually. "Understood", NOT "eaten". Meaning, it is a mental grasping of something, NOT a physical eating of something. This he further explains in another citation where he says that the spiritual meaning has to be "grasped". Not "eaten", grasped - again, a mental thing, NOT a physical one.

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?

---

For America only?

Pretty sure it is for any Nation.


As for Climate Change, about 95% of the scientist in the world support that something is going on and very quickly. As someone that works in infrastructure, we are definitely seeing areas get pummeled that weren't in our lifespans. For the US, it shows as property damage. For most of the world, deaths and illness.

Even DoD, not the most liberal group, is working on coral projects to breed coral for water temperature changes to protect waterfront facilities. Real cool project paired with using concrete aggregate from demolition to create artificial reefs.

Reefense Program | X-REEFS Project | Rosenstiel School | University of Miami

My point is it is real, natural or man-made (personally I don't care, we have to deal with it), and it impacts humanity so I have no issue with the Pope trying to make people's lot on earth better. Seems consistent with the job.

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

Ananias and Sapphira died for being dishonest. Had nothing to do with them eating impure food. They were impure and paid the final price.


"No one gets sick or dies from a symbol." - That's arbitrary and not necessarily true. Lots of people died due to symbols in the Bible and not following God's intent. And not everyone gets sick, and not everyone dies immediately after taking communion with a less than pure heart, right?


The act of taking communion is to be taken with a clear conscience for mature repentant believers. That is all I need to know because that is what the Bible says in those two verses. It's not the symbol, it's the spirit of disobedience. So spiritually symbolic acts can have spiritual consequences - consequences as simple as the Lord removing his hedge of protection around a believer.

I'm not sure what you need me to explain. The spiritually figurative language is very clear, the rigidity around transubstantiation of today's Catholic differs from the historical church in the didache and the scriptures - and the early church wasn't as unified as the RC's pretend. It's always been described as body and blood, the metaphor is without doubt, and has deep spiritual significance, that is what is clear from the many diverse opinions in the early church.

Rome since right after Constatine grew more central and more political, concerned about controlling the masses, and you must submit to Rome, and thus being the "only" way to God. And since they've done some pretty unChristian things (at least according to those that are free to speak against the church). So as for the significance of transubstantiation, popularized in the medieval period, and the medieval church used some pretty coercive practices, it's clear that they were intent on being THEE only pathway to heaven. And would there be any other way for a power-centric, group to operate at that time? So yes, it is very convenient for the RC church. They control the eucharist, they control the doors, they control your salvation. You enter heaven through them and them alone. You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

Ananias and Sapphira died for being dishonest. Had nothing to do with them eating impure food. They were impure and paid the final price.


"No one gets sick or dies from a symbol." - That's arbitrary and not necessarily true. Lots of people died due to symbols in the Bible and not following God's intent. And not everyone gets sick, and not everyone dies immediately after taking communion with a less than pure heart, right?


The act of taking communion is to be taken with a clear conscience for mature repentant believers. That is all I need to know because that is what the Bible says in those two verses. It's not the symbol, it's the spirit of disobedience. So spiritually symbolic acts can have spiritual consequences - consequences as simple as the Lord removing his hedge of protection around a believer.

I'm not sure what you need me to explain. The spiritually figurative language is very clear, the rigidity around transubstantiation of today's Catholic differs from the historical church in the didache and the scriptures - and the early church wasn't as unified as the RC's pretend. It's always been described as body and blood, the metaphor is without doubt, and has deep spiritual significance, that is what is clear from the many diverse opinions in the early church.

Rome since right after Constatine grew more central and more political, concerned about controlling the masses, and you must submit to Rome, and thus being the "only" way to God. And since they've done some pretty unChristian things (at least according to those that are free to speak against the church). So as for the significance of transubstantiation, popularized in the medieval period, and the medieval church used some pretty coercive practices, it's clear that they were intent on being THEE only pathway to heaven. And would there be any other way for a power-centric, group to operate at that time? So yes, it is very convenient for the RC church. They control the eucharist, they control the doors, they control your salvation. You enter heaven through them and them alone. You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.

---

The bolded and italicized is where you overstate the case and I think the accusation of "not being allowed to believe"... is equally true in both directions.

John 6:53-66 can very reasonably be read in the literal sense. Jesus refers to "my flesh", he alludes to eating manna from heaven and then eating his flesh, he refers to feeding on him. Not for nothing, many biblical scholars have a defendable claim that a more literal translation is appropriate and "eat" is more appropriately translated as "gnaw" and "chew" in those verses. And we know Jesus lost many disciples over this teaching because we infer that they were hearing the teaching it in a hyper literal sense. Those people had the benefit of important contextual clues in tone and presentation that we will never have. How were those lost disciples hearing the teachings in John 6 in your view?

If you want to come out of reading the scriptures and say that you disagree with the Church's interpretation and teaching, okay. I disagree with you, but, sure, you can come out to a different place from me. But to suggest your interpretation is very clear is simply inaccurate in light of John Ch. 6.

As for Augustine, a doctor of the Church is viewed as a great spiritual guidepost, but not infallible. Those of us in this thread are disagreeing as to the interpretation of his teachings. Nothing more, nothing less. By 150 AD Justin Martyr is defending the Church against accusations of cannibalism from Rome and others. He is teaching about the transformation of the bread and wine....

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.

---

I don't think anyone on this thread qualifies as objective. But if you look to secular historians, you'll find many of the same arguments we've presented here. The key point is that sign and reality are not mutually exclusive.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

Ananias and Sapphira died for being dishonest. Had nothing to do with them eating impure food. They were impure and paid the final price.


"No one gets sick or dies from a symbol." - That's arbitrary and not necessarily true. Lots of people died due to symbols in the Bible and not following God's intent. And not everyone gets sick, and not everyone dies immediately after taking communion with a less than pure heart, right?


The act of taking communion is to be taken with a clear conscience for mature repentant believers. That is all I need to know because that is what the Bible says in those two verses. It's not the symbol, it's the spirit of disobedience. So spiritually symbolic acts can have spiritual consequences - consequences as simple as the Lord removing his hedge of protection around a believer.

I'm not sure what you need me to explain. The spiritually figurative language is very clear, the rigidity around transubstantiation of today's Catholic differs from the historical church in the didache and the scriptures - and the early church wasn't as unified as the RC's pretend. It's always been described as body and blood, the metaphor is without doubt, and has deep spiritual significance, that is what is clear from the many diverse opinions in the early church.

Rome since right after Constatine grew more central and more political, concerned about controlling the masses, and you must submit to Rome, and thus being the "only" way to God. And since they've done some pretty unChristian things (at least according to those that are free to speak against the church). So as for the significance of transubstantiation, popularized in the medieval period, and the medieval church used some pretty coercive practices, it's clear that they were intent on being THEE only pathway to heaven. And would there be any other way for a power-centric, group to operate at that time? So yes, it is very convenient for the RC church. They control the eucharist, they control the doors, they control your salvation. You enter heaven through them and them alone. You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.

---

John 6:53-66 can very reasonably be read in the literal sense. Jesus refers to "my flesh", he alludes to eating manna from heaven and then eating his flesh, he refers to feeding on him. Not for nothing, many biblical scholars have a defendable claim that a more literal translation is appropriate and "eat" is more appropriately translated as "gnaw" and "chew" in those verses. And we know Jesus lost many disciples over this teaching because we infer that they were hearing the teaching it in a hyper literal sense. Those people had the benefit of important contextual clues in tone and presentation that we will never have. How were those lost disciples hearing the teachings in John 6 in your view?

---

Those reading John chapter 6 in the literal sense completely missed what was being said. Jesus' reference to manna was to explain that even though they ate it, they eventually died, indicating that physical food does not give eternal life. Jesus' whole "bread of life" discourse in that chapter was not to tell them that he was actually a loaf of bread like the manna that must be ingested physically. He was speaking of a much higher meaning, a way of "eating" that was NOT physical, but spiritual, and it leads to eternal life. Jesus' was telling them a mystery of what was to happen to him, something they didn't know yet at that time - that Jesus was going to give his physical body over to sacrifice on the cross. His physical body was going to be broken, torn, "gnawed", in the same way that food is torn, broken, and chewed up in our mouths for us to have physical, fleshly nourishment. Except Jesus' body was being torn up for us to have spiritual nourishment and spiritual life. To "eat" Jesus' flesh to drink his blood is to BELIEVE in him, and in his sacrifice that gave us that eternal life. To think we must eat him in the same way as the manna was eaten, is to completely miss his point and the saving nature of his sacrifice on the cross for us - and so like those who ate the manna in the wilderness, you will only have sustained your physical life, at the end of which you will die, not having gained the eternal life in the spirit.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.

---

I don't think anyone on this thread qualifies as objective. But if you look to secular historians, you'll find many of the same arguments we've presented here. The key point is that sign and reality are not mutually exclusive.

---

Except when the writer says something is figurative, and makes no other mention of any exceptions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

THANK YOU! You have to look at the context of why sermons were written.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

Even the babiest of true Christians can see that this is an affront to the finished, once for all time sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

So you're denying that according to RC, the mass results in forgiveness of sins, without which those sins would not be forgiven?

I didn't think so.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

So you're denying that according to RC, the mass results in forgiveness of sins, without which those sins would not be forgiven?

I didn't think so.

---

No, that's not right. Sins are forgiven through the sacrifice and intercession of Christ. Mass is a way of abiding in him and receiving the benefits of his grace in our daily lives.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

So you're denying that according to RC, the mass results in forgiveness of sins, without which those sins would not be forgiven?

I didn't think so.

---

No, that's not right. Sins are forgiven through the sacrifice and intercession of Christ. Mass is a way of abiding in him and receiving the benefits of his grace in our daily lives.

---

So, just to be clear - you're denying that according to the RC view, one's venial sins committed since the last mass was not forgiven in that mass, but can only be forgiven through the next mass one partakes in?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.

---

Remind me where in Scripture Jesus said some sins are just 'venial'?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

So you're denying that according to RC, the mass results in forgiveness of sins, without which those sins would not be forgiven?

I didn't think so.

---

No, that's not right. Sins are forgiven through the sacrifice and intercession of Christ. Mass is a way of abiding in him and receiving the benefits of his grace in our daily lives.

---

So, just to be clear - you're denying that according to the RC view, one's venial sins committed since the last mass was not forgiven in that mass, but can only be forgiven through the next mass one partakes in?

---

Yes.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.

---

I agree.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

Ananias and Sapphira died for being dishonest. Had nothing to do with them eating impure food. They were impure and paid the final price.


"No one gets sick or dies from a symbol." - That's arbitrary and not necessarily true. Lots of people died due to symbols in the Bible and not following God's intent. And not everyone gets sick, and not everyone dies immediately after taking communion with a less than pure heart, right?


The act of taking communion is to be taken with a clear conscience for mature repentant believers. That is all I need to know because that is what the Bible says in those two verses. It's not the symbol, it's the spirit of disobedience. So spiritually symbolic acts can have spiritual consequences - consequences as simple as the Lord removing his hedge of protection around a believer.

I'm not sure what you need me to explain. The spiritually figurative language is very clear, the rigidity around transubstantiation of today's Catholic differs from the historical church in the didache and the scriptures - and the early church wasn't as unified as the RC's pretend. It's always been described as body and blood, the metaphor is without doubt, and has deep spiritual significance, that is what is clear from the many diverse opinions in the early church.

Rome since right after Constatine grew more central and more political, concerned about controlling the masses, and you must submit to Rome, and thus being the "only" way to God. And since they've done some pretty unChristian things (at least according to those that are free to speak against the church). So as for the significance of transubstantiation, popularized in the medieval period, and the medieval church used some pretty coercive practices, it's clear that they were intent on being THEE only pathway to heaven. And would there be any other way for a power-centric, group to operate at that time? So yes, it is very convenient for the RC church. They control the eucharist, they control the doors, they control your salvation. You enter heaven through them and them alone. You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.

---

The bolded and italicized is where you overstate the case and I think the accusation of "not being allowed to believe"... is equally true in both directions.

John 6:53-66 can very reasonably be read in the literal sense. Jesus refers to "my flesh", he alludes to eating manna from heaven and then eating his flesh, he refers to feeding on him. Not for nothing, many biblical scholars have a defendable claim that a more literal translation is appropriate and "eat" is more appropriately translated as "gnaw" and "chew" in those verses. And we know Jesus lost many disciples over this teaching because we infer that they were hearing the teaching it in a hyper literal sense. Those people had the benefit of important contextual clues in tone and presentation that we will never have. How were those lost disciples hearing the teachings in John 6 in your view?

If you want to come out of reading the scriptures and say that you disagree with the Church's interpretation and teaching, okay. I disagree with you, but, sure, you can come out to a different place from me. But to suggest your interpretation is very clear is simply inaccurate in light of John Ch. 6.

As for Augustine, a doctor of the Church is viewed as a great spiritual guidepost, but not infallible. Those of us in this thread are disagreeing as to the interpretation of his teachings. Nothing more, nothing less. By 150 AD Justin Martyr is defending the Church against accusations of cannibalism from Rome and others. He is teaching about the transformation of the bread and wine....

---

Without the RC church forcing the issue and finding a way for it to be human flesh but not somehow, it would not be literal at that moment in John 6. The jews were not allowed to eat human flesh, Jesus lead a life sinless under the old testament law. If you were to ask a Jew at the time, Jesus was clearly using passover/sacrificial covenant language, and meant that he is replacing the lamb with himself. That is why real presence or spiritually significant symbol are the only two options, so unless Christ and disciples gets a pass on eating human flesh, as believers somehow do today in the RC church.

Based on your response, I just want to be clear, I don't really have angst for the RC, I was just typing free thought, so don't let it come across too critical, I am just discussing since I think many devout Catholics are as studied or even more so than I am on early Church history. And yes I do disagree with the Church's interpretation, sure, and it doesn't bother me that Catholics believe differently that it is literal. There are prots that struggle with it and just go with Real Presence. Which is completely fine. The point I think is that I don't need it to be one or the other for it to accomplish what Scripture pronounces for it. I trust Christ to work through my obedience in that moment. Christ died once on the cross and rose again, and through him all who believe are saved. I believe communion to be spiritually significant and an act of obedience. It is not a multi-pass to heaven, only Christ is the way, one does not have to consume his literal flesh to believe and have faith and receive his gift of salvation. The scriptures and the Didache don't stress it at all like they do faith and belief. Both would obviously have stressed it significantly more if it was at the level that Catholics believe it to be today imo.

And I was also just making the point that Catholic leadership has this convenient and circular need for it to be literal, because it allows them to say that only an RC person can kick off the transformation - and only by consuming it from us can you get to heaven - so don't miss even one week. Truly that doesn't mean bad motives and they are lying, they can just truly believe different from me, and I suspect most genuinely do. It could also be that real presence moved to the current transubstantiation understanding for reasons other than mere belief, but also even more direct control. The medieval church was far from blameless in using coercion and questionable tactics.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

Ananias and Sapphira died for being dishonest. Had nothing to do with them eating impure food. They were impure and paid the final price.


"No one gets sick or dies from a symbol." - That's arbitrary and not necessarily true. Lots of people died due to symbols in the Bible and not following God's intent. And not everyone gets sick, and not everyone dies immediately after taking communion with a less than pure heart, right?


The act of taking communion is to be taken with a clear conscience for mature repentant believers. That is all I need to know because that is what the Bible says in those two verses. It's not the symbol, it's the spirit of disobedience. So spiritually symbolic acts can have spiritual consequences - consequences as simple as the Lord removing his hedge of protection around a believer.

I'm not sure what you need me to explain. The spiritually figurative language is very clear, the rigidity around transubstantiation of today's Catholic differs from the historical church in the didache and the scriptures - and the early church wasn't as unified as the RC's pretend. It's always been described as body and blood, the metaphor is without doubt, and has deep spiritual significance, that is what is clear from the many diverse opinions in the early church.

Rome since right after Constatine grew more central and more political, concerned about controlling the masses, and you must submit to Rome, and thus being the "only" way to God. And since they've done some pretty unChristian things (at least according to those that are free to speak against the church). So as for the significance of transubstantiation, popularized in the medieval period, and the medieval church used some pretty coercive practices, it's clear that they were intent on being THEE only pathway to heaven. And would there be any other way for a power-centric, group to operate at that time? So yes, it is very convenient for the RC church. They control the eucharist, they control the doors, they control your salvation. You enter heaven through them and them alone. You are not even allowed to believe that Augustine may have held less literal views ... that are clear to anyone with an objective look.

---

The bolded and italicized is where you overstate the case and I think the accusation of "not being allowed to believe"... is equally true in both directions.

John 6:53-66 can very reasonably be read in the literal sense. Jesus refers to "my flesh", he alludes to eating manna from heaven and then eating his flesh, he refers to feeding on him. Not for nothing, many biblical scholars have a defendable claim that a more literal translation is appropriate and "eat" is more appropriately translated as "gnaw" and "chew" in those verses. And we know Jesus lost many disciples over this teaching because we infer that they were hearing the teaching it in a hyper literal sense. Those people had the benefit of important contextual clues in tone and presentation that we will never have. How were those lost disciples hearing the teachings in John 6 in your view?

If you want to come out of reading the scriptures and say that you disagree with the Church's interpretation and teaching, okay. I disagree with you, but, sure, you can come out to a different place from me. But to suggest your interpretation is very clear is simply inaccurate in light of John Ch. 6.

As for Augustine, a doctor of the Church is viewed as a great spiritual guidepost, but not infallible. Those of us in this thread are disagreeing as to the interpretation of his teachings. Nothing more, nothing less. By 150 AD Justin Martyr is defending the Church against accusations of cannibalism from Rome and others. He is teaching about the transformation of the bread and wine....

---

Without the RC church forcing the issue and finding a way for it to be human flesh but not somehow, it would not be literal at that moment in John 6. The jews were not allowed to eat human flesh, Jesus lead a life sinless under the old testament law. If you were to ask a Jew at the time, Jesus was clearly using passover/sacrificial covenant language, and meant that he is replacing the lamb with himself. That is why real presence or spiritually significant symbol are the only two options, so unless Christ and disciples gets a pass on eating human flesh, as believers somehow do today in the RC church.

---

I disagree because the idea that Jesus is speaking symbolically about the sacrifice on the cross only begins to make sense after the cross and resurrection. Sure, from our perspective knowing how the entire story ends, I can see how you get there. At the time of Jesus it was still customary for each family to eat the passover lamb (practice isn't changed until after 70 AD). If Jews at the time would understand that Jesus is speaking of replacing the passover lamb with himself, what are the people at the time hearing him say when he is discussing replacing the passover lamb with himself? What happened to the flesh of the lamb after the sacrifice at passover?

Not only that, Jesus lost disciples over the Bread of Life. Seems very strange that he is losing disciples over a misunderstood symbolic teaching. Indeed, other examples of lost disciples are because the lost disciples understand precisely what Jesus is teaching and are unwilling to go there with Jesus (the rich young man who couldn't sell his possessions comes to mind).

This would stand out as the loss of followers over an (innocent?) misunderstanding. If you rewrite the whole discourse as "Jesus lost disciples of the Bread of Life teaching and those that remained struggled with the teaching because in both cases they took literally what the Rabbi Jesus meant to be understood as a symbolic stand-in for believing in Jesus" the entire thing loses a lot of its weight. I suppose you could get there if you import the idea that this was the first time Jesus was hinting at not delivering political liberation for Israel, and that was what really drove disciples away, but I just don't see you you read that into the verses. Why is he losing disciples if the disciples are not hearing it as literal?

Quote:

---

Based on your response, I just want to be clear, I don't really have angst for the RC, I was just typing free thought, so don't let it come across too critical, I am just discussing since I think many devout Catholics are as studied or even more so than I am on early Church history. And yes I do disagree with the Church's interpretation, sure, and it doesn't bother me that Catholics believe differently that it is literal. There are prots that struggle with it and just go with Real Presence. Which is completely fine. The point I think is that I don't need it to be one or the other for it to accomplish what Scripture pronounces for it. I trust Christ to work through my obedience in that moment. Christ died once on the cross and rose again, and through him all who believe are saved. I believe communion to be spiritually significant and an act of obedience. It is not a multi-pass to heaven, only Christ is the way, one does not have to consume his literal flesh to believe and have faith and receive his gift of salvation. The scriptures and the Didache don't stress it at all like they do faith and belief. Both would obviously have stressed it significantly more if it was at the level that Catholics believe it to be today imo.

And I was also just making the point that Catholic leadership has this convenient and circular need for it to be literal, because it allows them to say that only an RC person can kick off the transformation - and only by consuming it from us can you get to heaven - so don't miss even one week. Truly that doesn't mean bad motives and they are lying, they can just truly believe different from me, and I suspect most genuinely do. It could also be that real presence moved to the current transubstantiation understanding for reasons other than mere belief, but also even more direct control. The medieval church was far from blameless in using coercion and questionable tactics.

---

My only contention is that you are pointing out the fallen nature of man (the RCC needs it to be this way) while ignoring that we are all fallen and susceptible to the same self-interested arguments.... I believe you are a poster of good will.

It was a Paul thing, bringing Christianity to the heathens...

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"?

---

It's a fair question, and the truth is I struggle with your last question - and I don't think most RCs are saved, the laity, because most are not devoutly devoted to Christ. They are devoted to attending the church and doing what it says. They rely on the Church to save them while living all sorts of bad living. May be similar for prots, but less so, as traditional prots actually believe that a reformed life is the only evidence of sanctification. But I do believe the devoted Christ followers in the RC that have some bad theology yet profess Christ as their savior will end up in Heaven alongside me.

The sadder part for me, is if you ask a devout Catholic, if you were to die today would you end up in heaven, most will answer ... maybe, I don't know, possibly. That lack of faith in the final assurance of Christ, and their need to be punished in purgatory, and their doubt, is truly sad and not based in scripture,

and of course it does relate back to your question on faith ... at the end of the day, I don't know, I tend to think God's saving grace can work through their imperfect and misaligned teachings.

Sam LowryThe mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

So you're denying that according to RC, the mass results in forgiveness of sins, without which those sins would not be forgiven?

I didn't think so.

---

No, that's not right. Sins are forgiven through the sacrifice and intercession of Christ. Mass is a way of abiding in him and receiving the benefits of his grace in our daily lives.

---

So, just to be clear - you're denying that according to the RC view, one's venial sins committed since the last mass was not forgiven in that mass, but can only be forgiven through the next mass one partakes in?

---

Yes.

---

Then why does RC view the Eucharist as a propiatory sacrifice? What is it propiating for?

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.

---

I agree.

---

If you agree that the eucharist brings forgiveness of venial sins, then you agree that I'm correct, no?

That is rich. Bad lives? You been to a Baptist service lately?

FLBear5630 said:

---

That is rich. Bad lives? You been to a Baptist service lately?

---

Sorry, if it came across wrong, I'm not talking about your faithful, so relax, lots and lots of good Catholics. I'm talking about the Catholics we all know, likely their majority in the US anyway, the one's pushing the lgbtqxyz agenda, the ones pushing the illegal immigration, the ones that party and party and then just go to church to get their absolution.

In case you haven't been keeping up, Catholics have been leading the progressive agenda amongst main-stream religions for two decades now. That doesn't mean it's the true Catholics, just the people who call themselves Catholic and go to get their "pardon" for the weeks activities, so they can rinse and repeat.

Yes, I've been to Baptists and other protestant churches, all traditional beliefs. Not sure what your point is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThe mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

So you're denying that according to RC, the mass results in forgiveness of sins, without which those sins would not be forgiven?

I didn't think so.

---

No, that's not right. Sins are forgiven through the sacrifice and intercession of Christ. Mass is a way of abiding in him and receiving the benefits of his grace in our daily lives.

---

So, just to be clear - you're denying that according to the RC view, one's venial sins committed since the last mass was not forgiven in that mass, but can only be forgiven through the next mass one partakes in?

---

Yes.

---

Then why does RC view the Eucharist as a propiatory sacrifice? What is it propiating for?

---

All the sins of the world, past, present, and future. Remember, it's nothing more or less than a re-presentation of Christ's propitiatory, once-and-for-all sacrifice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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"?

---

This is mostly incorrect, BTW. The mass is not a new sacrifice for sins, nor is purgatory a place of payment for what Christ already purchased. Some other issues have already been addressed.

---

I didn't say it was a "new sacrifice", but a re-presented propiatory sacrifice for new sins since the last mass, which is a complete repudiation of Jesus' own declaration of his finished work and his "ONCE for all time" propiatory sacrifice on the cross. The idea that Jesus did not "purchase" the cleansing of ALL sin for the believer by suffering for all the sins of that believer, thus the believer needs to suffer himself in part for his sins, is also a complete repudiation of the completed work of Jesus on the cross. Thus, these beliefs are most definitely NOT a demonstration of having "faith in Jesus". Rather, it's a slap to his face and what he accomplished for us, thus it's a wicked belief.

---

The mass is a re-presentation or re-offering of Christ's sacrifice, yes. Not a repetition. I don't know where you got the stuff about "new sins" or any of the rest of that.

---

Why do you need weekly masses? What happens without it, according to the RC view?

---

Many reasons. It's a way of worshiping God, obeying Christ's command at the Last Supper, bringing believers together in unity, hearing and learning about the Word, bearing witness to the faith, fostering a community, and receiving Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Not having mass would be a hardship, but God's grace would continue its work in our lives.

---

There is no reason to consider the mass a propiatory sacrifice like RC does, unless it's a repetitive offering of reparation for ongoing sins. Meaning, your new sins since your last mass are not forgiven as a result from that mass, thus it needs to be perpetually repeated and re-offered again and again and again.

---

No, that is not what it means. Grave sins aren't forgiven as a result of going to mass anyway. Receiving communion while not in a state of grace is a sin in itself.

---

The eucharist forgives venial sins. Unless you committed a mortal sin, you should not stay away from the eucharist. Christ gave it to us to bring us closer to God, not keep us away.

---

I agree.

---

If you agree that the eucharist brings forgiveness of venial sins, then you agree that I'm correct, no?

---

No, forgiveness of venial sins can be had in all kinds of ways. Nothing ties it exclusively to the Eucharist or to the mass as an act of propitiation for sins committed during a specific time.