In your quotes, Augustine is not talking about the Eucharist. in mine, he addresses the Body and Blood of Christ directly. besides, he was a Catholic Bishop who was not shy about fighting false doctrine when he became aware of it. He held the Catholic position on the Eucharist consistent with the words spoken by Jesus Himself, Paul and all the Church Fathers beginning with Ignatius, a disciple of John.
Cornelius received the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit to show Peter that there was not any difference between the Jews and Gentiles when it came to preaching the Gospel. He needed to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins just like those in Acts 2:38, the eunuch in Acts 8 and Paul himself in Acts 22:16. i guess Augustine was wrong for believing in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” as well?
did anyone believe in the two baptism theory before the 16th century?
“In your quotes, Augustine is not talking about the Eucharist.”
In mine, he spiritualizes the scripture wherein Christ speaks of eating and drinking Him.
” in mine,”
Assuming they are yours, and not friends of mine when read in their entirety. I did a search and could not find the sermons wherein these are taken.
“He held the Catholic position “
Which Catholic position? According to Gregory, or if you are to believed in your Roman traditions, there were three different Popes. Of course, Gregory never argued for supremacy of Rome or a “Universal Bishop” as you would understand it today.
As for Catholics, lets check what all these ‘Catholics’ had to say:
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)
Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii.)
For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)
For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. (Theodoret, Dialogue II, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)
For the Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body. (Augustine, Against Adimant.)
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. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III.)
He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood. (Augustine, on Psalm 3.)
We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica.)
To You we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you, unto the remission of sins.” (Anaphora, quoted in Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, II, p 132.)
Offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles.)
Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries. (Pope Gelasius, de Duabus Naturis).
Is consubstantiation or a figurative understanding of the Eucharist square with the Roman transubstantiation? Is the eucharist to be done in remembrance of Christ, or is it a re-sacrifice of Christ? And did these people really believe the latter?
” all the Church Fathers beginning with Ignatius”
Neither Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement speak of the Pope, or any supreme Bishop. In fact, Ignatius, writing to Polycarp, calls the head of Polycarp God. According to the Catechism, the head of the Bishop is the Pope.
“Cornelius received the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit to show Peter that there was not any difference between the Jews and Gentiles when it came to preaching the Gospel.”
Illogical, since Peter had already had that proven to himself by the vision straight from God. Peter was already preaching to them and would have followed that up with water baptism either way. He could have baptized them with water, and THEN they could have had the signs and wonders to show the Jews they too were filled with the Spirit. Instead, they were baptized/filled with the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism. Therefore, water baptism cannot confer the Holy Spirit or salvation, which is done by the sovereign grace of God through faith.
Either water baptism is the tool by which spiritual blessings follow, or else salvation takes place in the spirit and in the heart as wrought by the Holy Spirit.