I think I may have figured out where the source of disagreement lies here, at least wrt Augustine’s Tractate 25. So this will address that but I suspect the source of disagreement elsewhere will lie in a similar source, namely, the way each of us are reading the Saint’s words. Observe....
GPH stated, “If Jesus gives Himself in the Eucharist, how can Augustine assert that the command “Believe on Him whom the Father has sent” is to “labor for that meat which perishes not.”
Apparently GPH derives this conclusion from this passage of Tractate 25: “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. (Augustine, Tractate 25)”
Or more specifically from this sentence: This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life.
This sentence, or the interpretation of the phrase “This is then to eat the meat...” Is where the central disagreement lies here (I believe)
IOW, we Catholics interpret that sentence to say, “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat...”
GPH interprets it to say, “This is what it MEANS to say ‘we eat this meat’...”
Now I will conclude by saying this: Both interpretations, when taken at face value and divorced from the history of the author (Augustine) himself and from historical interpretation are valid and/or reasonable. But this is why I’ve said before that the historical framework in which this (and other Augustinian works) have been written cannot and should not be ignored, to whit, the man’s own personal history AND the Church (even at that time) Tradition to which he converted. Given THAT context, his words carry a clear meaning which I have described before which is, that the Eucharist is literally Christ’s body, understood in the spiritual SENSE, not the PHYSICAL sense, but still LITERALLY His Body nonetheless.
I do not know how much more clear I could be in explaining the difference of opinion here and I dare say I don’t know what else could be added at this point other than a simple agreement to disagree about the interpretation of the Saint’s words above (and elsewhere).
Nice Job. Thanks
Now we're getting somewhere. I have seen you say similar before (God bless you).
On those terms GPH may agree. That seems to be what he has been tending towards all along, even as the not physical/but still literal seems to confuse, for it be reliant upon "in the spiritual sense" leaving a fairly wide range of understanding fundamentally correct, encompassing even Memorialism well enough (Him present within) that those whom hold that view should not be bashed over the head or by force compelled, yet stop short of encompassing Suspension as at all proper, albeit though they too may sup with Him in inward manner to the extent it be sacramentally evident and shared by their own manner of testimony of life lived in dedication to those greatest of all commandments upon which hang all the law and the prophets.
Nonetheless I do tend know that it be impossible that by our works we earn fellowship with Him, or can do so by understanding of mind, mental assent only,for one does not become born again, born of above, by their own works or *thinking*, with all desperately needing this re-birth in order to be able to be in union with the Lord John 14, coming to the place of inward, deep knowing (as evidenced within us by the Presence of the Holy Ghost mentioned in chptr 15) of the beautifully & poetically expressed;
Lost me there. Too difficult to focus upon how the "happens" as it is being imposed upon the text makes a difference, with the conversation being too strung out at this point to easily pull various thread together to see how the "this is what happens can even be imposed...
But thanks for much of the rest. At least it was bravely approaching "the species does not change".
IOW, we Catholics interpret that sentence to say, “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat..."<.i>
Or, you could interpret it to mean "If you get the right cut, the meat tastes a little like chicken...
Apparently GPH derives this conclusion from this passage of Tractate 25: “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. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
So you had to rip the sentence out of the paragraph to make it mean something on it's own...
This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat
But you changed it to:
This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent. “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat...”
So Augustine says that when you eat the cracker, then you can or will believe on who God has sent, Jesus...
Nope...Didn't happen...Ain't gonna happen...It doesn't matter how far and wide Catholics want to twist and turn what Augustine said, he said what he said...And it means what it means...
And I'm not buying that any Catholics on FR believe this nonsense either...