Posted on 05/10/2013 10:47:38 AM PDT by NYer
******Christ specifically explains that He will ascend up to where He was before, and that His words are spiritual, ‘the flesh profits nothing.’ In other words, how can they expect to eat and drink him physically if He is going back to heaven? Since no one took a bite out of him to gain eternal life while they still could, I think we can safely assume that the Apostles understood “eating” and “drinking” Christ spiritually, just as Christ recommended. Furthermore, when Christ institutes the Lord’s Supper, He specifically says that it should be done for remembrance. Not for eternal life. If one is celebrating The Lord’s Supper as a remembrance, He is calling us to remember what Christ did for us on the cross, and not instituting a way to get into heaven by chewing and eating.*****
What I find interesting in these exchanges is the absolute inability of non Catholics to see the evolution of Jesus’ teachings throughout the Gospels. What a disjointed grasp of Scripture they have!
Little pieces, I guess just the shiny ones catch their attention and hold sway over them such that they have no idea of the glaring and gaping holes left by what is missing.
Jesus didn’t just throw everything at the Apostles at once, even saying that they weren’t ready for all that He had to tell them. That is why there is a flow of teachings from Him to them so that they can adjust to and grasp what they were being given.
Jesus feeds the five thousand.
Jesus gives the Bread of Life discourse.
Jesus tells them they must eat His body and drink His blood to have life within them.
Jesus breaks the bread, looks to heaven and tells them “This is My body”, likewise the cup saying, “This is MY blood.”
There’s a flow, a gentle leading of them to the truth. I think when one thinks they can “safely assume” anything, I can know that they only safely assume what they feel safe accepting rather than what is actually written.
What? You believe God is sharing His glory with you?
She listened to God’s word, held it close in her heart and gave over to Him her entire being.
So did the apostles and ALL those who Hear and Obey. Everything I posted that Jesus said went over your head - you can't understand it.
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and CANNOT UNDERSTAND them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." 1 Cor 2:14
“What I find interesting in these exchanges is the absolute inability of non Catholics to see the evolution of Jesus’ teachings throughout the Gospels. What a disjointed grasp of Scripture they have!”
What makes you think this is a disjointed grasp of scripture? You’re mere assertion that it is so? I notice you didn’t bother to explain what it is. So, let’s connect scripture with scripture. If Augustine is wrong and John 6 has nothing to do with eating and drinking through faith, why is it that the Lord’s Supper, instituted later, is only done so for the purpose of “remembrance.” Not as a legalistic method of salvation?
WHY do you say it's ridiculous? When you basically said it. Your own words below...You trust 'man' as you trust God.
His protection and guidance is upon the Magisterium, we can trust them as we trust Him.
Catholicsm is based on 'man', with 'man' as it's head with 'man made' teachings and it has NOTHING to do with God.
Jesus is The Head of His Body/His Church and it is based on HIS WORD Alone and His Word is The FINAL Authority.
******“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood. (Augustine, Letters, 98)******
Augustine here is saying that the Sacrament are sacraments because they are REAL, as in TRUE, ACTUAL, AUTHENTIC in regards to that which they are named for. They bear the realities, as in...the state of being true to that which name they bear. Therefore, if the sacrament was not real, it would not be named for the realities which it bears.
So in a certain manner, that is without doubt in some way, the Sacrament is Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Augustine here is trying to explain how it is that we see and taste bread and wine, but we are partaking in Christ’s body and blood.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION!
The word symbolic or symbolism is not used here. Rather the words used are certain, real, realities. This is conjunction with Augustine’s assertion you posted shows that he did in fact try to explain the Eucharist as transubstantiation, but did use that word.
Your other “proof” that Augustine did not believe....
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, *****“œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.*****
Here Augustine is speaking of Jesus’ rebuke of the crowds who followed Him after the feeding of the five thousand. They wanted a full belly and no idea of the eternal nature of the food which Jesus would give them to eat. Augustine is simply reiterating what Christ said, Why do you eat? Is is for earthly satiation or for eternal life?
“This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him who He has sent.” That is what the Church does.....we believe Jesus, whom God has sent when He says, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you.”
*****” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)****
This passage goes back again to the misunderstanding of those disciples who left Christ after hearing His exhortation that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
******I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken.******
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See synonyms at immaterial.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/spiritual#ixzz2TPzZW5kk
When we look at this definition of spiritual, since there is not real definition of “spiritually”, we see that the first definition is “not tangible” or “material”.
It is stated quite clearly here, THIS IS A MYSTERY which is not tangibly or materially seen but this mystery does quicken, that is gives life.
Still no refutation of the Real Presence through transubstantiation.
****These are pretty firm refutations of the Catholic View. They even understand John 6 in the way Protestants do today. Augustine isn’t alone in this. Here’s from a Pope:*****
Only in the wishful thinking of non Catholics, especially when taken together with all the other Augustine sermons regarding this subject.
*****The idea of a constant tradition on this matter is simply fiction. It stands only by reading into the Fathers the current theology of Rome today, and falsely claiming that all held the same view.*****
Wrong again as I could copy and paste quote after quote after quote going all the way back to the first century the men and women of the faith trying to explain this MYSTERY and supporting the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
I will finish by asking you to name that Church to which Augustine belonged to and served as Bishop of Hippo for more than thirty years. Come on, I know you can:)
*****“Why don’t the Fathers support Roman dogma?” - “Well, my boy, THAT’s a mystery!” LOL******
There you go again, LOL! Can’t help yourself, huh?
I never said that what you claim is the Fathers not supporting dogma of the Catholic Church is a mystery.
I said, and what I shame I have to repeat myself so often to keep things straight, that.....
There is not one single man within the Church, to whom we can point and say, everything this man has said is perfect and orthodox.
The breadth of ignorance regarding Catholic doctrine exhibited here daily is vast and mind boggling. At least it is my hope that what I read here is truly ignorance and not something more malevolent.
“Augustine here is saying that the Sacrament are sacraments because they are REAL, as in TRUE, ACTUAL, AUTHENTIC”
He says that they have the names they do by “virtue of this LIKENESS... of the realities which they RESEMBLE.” Unless, of course, you believe that the sacrament of the Holy Spirit (the oil that he used to anoint the new believers) or the Kiss of Peace, are really, truly, authentically the transubstantiated Spirit and Peace placed into the oil and the kisses respectively.
“Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
Another, the sacrament of the kiss of peace:
“After that comes Peace be with you; a great sacrament, the kiss of peace. So kiss in such a way as really meaning that you love. Don’t be Judas; Judas the traitor kissed Christ with his mouth, while setting a trap for him in his heart. But perhaps somebody has unfriendly feelings toward you, and you are unable to win him round, to show him he’s wrong; you’re obliged to tolerate him. Don’t pay him back evil for evil in your heart. He hates; just you love, and you can kiss him without anxiety.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
“Therefore, if the sacrament was not real, it would not be named for the realities which it bears.”
It does not say they “bear” the realities, he says they resemble the realities:
“... bear the names of the realities which they resemble.”
The kiss of peace “resembles” the reality it is representing in the kiss. The bread resembles the body of Christ and the Church itself, which is the body of Christ. In fact, to Augustine, the point of the Eucharist is to emphasize Christian unity with each other and with God.
“If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving!” (Augustine, Serm. 272).
“They wanted a full belly and no idea of the eternal nature of the food which Jesus would give them to eat. Augustine is simply reiterating what Christ said, Why do you eat? Is is for earthly satiation or for eternal life?”
Augustine says “Believe, and thou hast eaten already.”
According to the RCC, one has not eaten until they’ve literally taken a bite offered to them in church. No one “believes” and takes the Eucharist through faith. Well, CHRISTIANS do, but not Catholics.
“This passage goes back again to the misunderstanding of those disciples who left Christ after hearing His exhortation that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.”
Earlier you said that we live with “disjointed” scripture. So, are you saying that John 6 has NOTHING to do with the Lord’s Supper wherein we are instructed to celebrate it for the purpose of “remembrance?” In both cases Jesus Christ is talking about eating and drinking Him, though to be understood spiritually and received through faith. Why are we separating that from the Lord’s Supper? It’s not like Christ commanded us, as a matter of salvation to celebrate, but rather as a memorial.
“Only in the wishful thinking of non Catholics, especially when taken together with all the other Augustine sermons regarding this subject.”
I’m quote confident you guys live in an alternate dimension where every time Augustine, in this dimension, says “resemblance,” “signified,” or “likeness,” in your dimension it reads “just kidding!” after all of it! Must be a funny dimension.
I believe God in His divinity is glorious and Yes, He does deign to share that divinity with me through Jesus Christ His Son.
No, all the Apostles did not hear and obey God’s word perfectly. And no, not ALL those who HEAR and OBEY do so perfectly. It is certainly our desire, but not possible until we rest completely in Him in heaven.
***** Everything I posted that Jesus said went over your head - you can’t understand it. *****
If it gives you pleasure to think this, then by all means, please do so.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Oh??
I'll bet she's in her tomb; awaiting the last trumpet sound - just like so many other Christians believers who have died.
It's your eternity, not mine. If it pleases you to ignore God's Word - that's on you, not me.
*****What makes you think this is a disjointed grasp of scripture?*****
Just an observation on my part, made based on the fact that non Catholics tend to throw out snippets of Scripture without relating how they fit in with the whole of Scripture.
****I notice you didn’t bother to explain what it is****
Oh but I have, if one has been paying attention.
****If Augustine is wrong and John 6 has nothing to do with eating and drinking through faith*****
Who said that Augustine is wrong? Why, if one has no faith would one partake in the Eucharist? But it is not one’s faith that makes the Eucharist what it is, but without faith, there is no purpose to participating in it.
As Augustine said, for what purpose do you ready your teeth and belly? If it is for earthly satiation, then it is without any benefit.
*****why is it that the Lord’s Supper, instituted later, is only done so for the purpose of “remembrance.” Not as a legalistic method of salvation?*****
Your quibble here would be with the Lord Himself and not me, for it was He that said one must eat and drink in order to have eternal life and it was He that took the bread, broke it after giving thanks and said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
That being said, the use of the word remembrance in the NT Greek is not what you would propose as if the celebration of the Eucharist is nothing more than that.
I won’t cut and paste in the arguments for the actual Greek word used which does not translate into the simple use of the word remembrance.
Suffice it to say, that the intention of it is not what you infer here.
Rest assured, I would not have you worry about my eternal life and risk any discomfort for my sake.
Therefore, it is good to know that you won’t and I know that God will not hold it against you:)
You are certainly free to make that bet, though it will have to be with someone else, I don’t wager, even on a sure thing.
The Magisterium is the voice of the Paraclete that Jesus promised. (John 14:16)
Peace be with you
“Who said that Augustine is wrong?”
I settled this in another post with the words “signified,” “likeness,” “resemblance,” and the phrase “Believe and you have already eaten.”
So, you’re wrong about Augustine.
“Your quibble here would be with the Lord Himself and not me, for it was He that said one must eat and drink in order to have eternal life”
Jesus Christ said to celebrate the Lord’s supper as a remembrance. He did not say one had to eat bread and wine prayed over to get saved. As Augustine says, “Believe and you have eaten already.”
That view is scripturally consistent:
Rom_10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 3:26-28 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
“I won’t cut and paste in the arguments for the actual Greek word used which does not translate into the simple use of the word remembrance.”
The word means remembrance:
“anamnesis”
—Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)
1) a remembering, recollection
—Thayer’s (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon)
From G0363; recollection:—remembrance (again).
And yet, the Church claims that a GROUP of them manage to espouse doctrine that is!
The amount of spinning and conjecture to come up with some of that 'doctrine' is amazing!
Is THIS a 'sure thing'?
I'll rest on Scripture - you can have your tradition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.