Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
But Augustine is not teaching that the Sacrament IS what it represents. He says that the reality and the representation are separate things:
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
The communion between Christ and the Church (for Augustine also teaches that the bread and the wine is our flesh and blood as well) in the eucharist is for us to "fix our hearts above," on that invisible reality that transcends the physical, which is enjoyed through faith alone, although, "carnally," a person might press the sacrament to their teeth and eat it. Again and again, Augustine states that spiritually, Christ is eaten without teeth and stomach.
“Catholics just do not have a grounding to understand scripture..”
I see Protestant anti-Catholics post ridiculous comments like that and I have to ask, “Do these Protestant anti-Catholics have any self-awareness at all?” There are Catholics here who know a great deal about scripture. I know Catholics who have a profound grounding in scripture and clearly know more about it than any Protestant Freeper I’ve ever seen post here. Then there are the former Protestant ministers I know - I have at least five or six friends who were Protestant ministers before becoming Catholics. Yet you would have to say - because of the ridiculous comment you just made - that they “just do not have a grounding to understand scripture”.
“could you post the authoritative infallible meaning of the book of James written by the magistrum”
Could you post the correct word? There’s no “magistrum”. It’s Magisterium. And you want US to take comments from anti-Catholics about “Catholics just...not hav[ing] a grounding to understand” anything seriously ?
“Yep. I think He is STILL showing how useless man made laws are.”
And today it seems He also showed how useless it is to sit in Protestant churches for 45 years if someone doesn’t read much.
Well, I am not claiming Augustine believes it is "just" a symbol. What I mean is, he believes it is both a symbol of a reality and a real spiritual communion between Christ and His Church, though not to be confused with that spiritual eating of Christ which is accomplished through faith. In John 6, Augustine is not actually there speaking of the Eucharist in any way, but explaining that Christ is eaten through faith. The eucharist only comes up later, and this, differentiated from the spiritual eating of Christ.
If we turn specifically to Augustine's theology on the eucharist, without any looking to his theology of faith, Augustine here considers the eucharist a thing that ought to bring to our minds a tender remembrance of Christ and also of ourselves for the sake of unity:
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
Though when Augustine speaks in this way, he does not claim it is a remembrance that has no spiritual component, but rather he holds that the whole church is communing together when enjoying the Eucharist, as that is exactly what the eucharist is, the entire church:
“How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood? The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you.” (Augustine, Sermon 272)
“I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)
The mystery of the eucharist is the church itself, communing together spiritually with Christ in the Lord's Supper, where ever we are. Though this is enjoyed only by those who have first been purified by faith.
If they did then why do we have all the different views of what it is? Different men decided to make it what he and his followers wanted to hear so in my humble opinion, that is why there are so many views.
FourtySeven; All,
Just to let you know, G_P_H has cut and pasted from someone’s blog without attribution yet again.
This section on Fr. Bartunek is taken from https://boldandresolute.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/augustine-transubstantiation/
He even cut and pasted the bad link that was included in the original: http://rcspiritualdirection.com/blog/2012/08/15/258-eating-right-jn-652-59#ixzz2pZMDVk3c
I also should point out that he has used the same St. Augustine quote in the past WITHOUT cutting and pasting the Bartunek comment (without attribution) from someone’s blof (right here at FR no less): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3017912/replies?c=135
And has done it BEFORE in the wrong way too: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3121075/replies?c=17
LOL. I read enough, to know I do not fall for the made laws of Romanism. I was a papist at one time, and thank God I was released from the bondage of Rome and sacerdotalism. If you want to stay in it, that’s on you. I think there is a catholic, somewhere in the world, cringing that a protestant is getting away with something he thinks he can’t, and it grates on their nerves. I have no intention of swimming the Tiber. Unfortunately, we might find out for sure on THAT day won’t we? I have NO problem taking the risk. See you at the pearly gates.
And you’re still wrong. Honestly, to claim to know something because you happen to be in it for 45 years and then to be so easily shown you were completely wrong on that point. Wow, what’s that like? I’ve never had that happen so I thought you could tell me what it felt like to find out you were wrong as a Protestant for 45 years. Do tell.
Alright well fine. Then I don't understand how anyone can claim this is necessarily destructive to the Catholic Church. Again, no one claims he taught Transubstantiation. But at the same time, he clearly taught there was a reality to the Eucharist.
LOL, whatever. See you at the pearly gates.
Interesting, thanks.
Well regardless, whoever says these things originally, it seems like so much twisting around to avoid the plain reality of St. Augustine’s teachings. Apparently this all really comes from Calvin’s opinions of Augustine’s teachings, so again, what authority does he have to teach on such matters? (rhetorical question there)
Anyway, I’m done with this “The Eucharist really is Christ, but it’s really not” stuff. I’ll leave it to the faithful and objective lurker to judge who has, at least, the less complicated view of St. Augustine’s beliefs.
I am the author of Bold and Resolute, though I'm not sure if I intend to use that blog (I don't know if I have the time for it). If you want, I can make a post on there to prove it.
This would actually support my cause, because instead of showing that Abraham was righteous, you make him a sinner. You also did not deal with your major impediment: that if we are saved by our merits or works, it is not by grace, because grace is not provided as debt for labor provided or for the merits of an individual. It is given gratuitously.
All of this disproves your claim that we are justified by our merits, partly out of your own mouth too.
As for predestination and our sins. Our good works are all the product of God working within us, as the scripture teaches "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Php 2:13). The power to sin, on the other hand, comes from our flesh only, though the outcome of this sin, or when it should occur, is under the control of God's providence, so that nothing can happen unless it may also be turned into good according to God's unfathomed purpose. For example, the sin of the brothers to sell Joseph into slavery, is done by them for evil purposes, but is meant by God for His good purposes:
Gen_50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Thus God rules even over our evil acts, so that we cannot sin as we would, nor sin in such a way that it is outside of God's providence, but only when it fulfills His will and allows Him to make use of that evil thing for some good purpose.
As for why the Elect still sin-- it's because we are not robots, but exist in this world with a flesh that wars against our spiritual mind. But if sin has dominion over us, there is no conflict between the flesh and mind, but rather both are unified in their obedience to sin. This is the meaning of your verse: "“But God be thanked, that ye WERE the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”
This is true for all Christians, we "were" the servants of sin, as now, with our mind, we worship God, although we war with the flesh which very often wins the contest, unfortunately. This is what Paul is teaching in Romans 7:
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Rom 7:22-25)
Note that Paul calls himself a "wretched man". Thus if righteousness is required for salvation, and this righteousness is in our own person and not imputed to us by faith, then Paul is damned by his own words, because he is not righteous, but a sinning wretch.
I can guarantee you that the WORKS that Rom. 4:4 refers to is NOT Acts 2:38. For Paul is writing to those that have obeyed Acts 2:38, noting that in the beginning of the epistle he greets those in Rome as ‘saints’. He reminds them in places like Rom. 6:17 about their conversion:
First, Paul himself is a saint of saints, and calls himself wretched, and therefore cannot be one for whom it is said he is in obedience in mind and body to God. But Paul is in obedience to God with his spiritual mind, though his body, like our own, often fails him. Let's look at Acts 2:38 now:
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
First, this does not prove that salvation is by works, because to be saved by works requires perfection, which none of us can have. From the OP, quoting Chrysostom:
“God allowed his Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner, so that we might be delivered from the penalty of our sins. This is God’s righteousness, that we are not justified by works (for then they would have to be perfect, which is impossible), but by grace, in which case all our sin is removed.”
Secondly, this does not prove that salvation is through works, because the only way anyone will want to repent and be baptized is through the Holy Ghost, which Paul says precedes repentance and baptism:
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
And this is clear also in Acts according to Luke:
Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
This mercy is explicitly without any notice of man's merits, whether foreseen or possible, but entirely on the mercy of God alone. From Augustine's reading of Romans chapter 9:
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
Now whoever God has mercy on is delivered into salvation absolutely. Though a person who repents and is baptized obeys the LORD, it is only because God has had mercy on him so that he should repent of his sins and live a holy life. It does not say in this verse that this holy life earns him salvation. It is a command, of course, and necessary for our salvation in the sense that God requires of us a heart turned from sin to enter heaven, but this is created in us by God, which is done gratuitously. Nor does having repentance only fulfill the law, because the law requires perfection, which none of us, not even Paul, can possess.
Again, fine. What you just said (bolded by me) is again, the definition of a "sacrament": Something that symbolizes and is really what it symbolizes. But consider this (regarding the remainder of what I quoted above not in bold), no one in the Catholic Church says we "eat" or "consume" or in any way, with our jaws and teeth "digest" the Grace of God in Communion.
What we do believe is pretty much what St. Augustine teaches on THAT subject, to whit, that we RECEIVE the Grace of God spiritually (the "spiritual eating of Christ" as you call it), through the Eucharist (which is the Body of Christ), but it's not our teeth and jaws that somehow "extract" this Grace, but rather it's mysteriously given to us, to our souls. It is thus not "consumed" (as St. Augustine said). And of course this Grace isn't destroyed by digestion with teeth and jaws.
This (what I just wrote above) doesn't contradict anything you have quoted St. Augustine saying. In fact, it's reinforced by all the quotes you've posted tonight. And it's all Catholic teaching.
This is not possible for Augustine, because you say "through" the eating of the Eucharist. But Augustine says that we eat Christ without eating the Eucharist, we "eat" Christ "already," even before readying teeth and stomach. Otherwise Augustine would have said, "at the same time" or "through," instead of "already" at the moment of faith.
“I am the author of Bold and Resolute, though I’m not sure if I intend to use that blog (I don’t know if I have the time for it). If you want, I can make a post on there to prove it.”
No, I believe you.
LOL Keep looking to your graven images!
>>I supposed you have to just keep making stuff up about witchcraft because you can’t post a logical rejoinder.<<
Go burn some fish hearts and smear the liver on your eyes.
Betcha that went right over their heads.
Haha ok man, so we are going to keep going around in circles regarding "'eat' Christ 'already' even before readying teeth and stomach"? No thanks.
Again, YES we receive Christ in the Eucharist through faith, which is also why Augustine says that those who DON'T believe eat their own judgment in the Eucharist! (another Catholic teaching!) Here's something to chew on (no pun intended): how can someone who has no faith "eat judgment upon themselves", as Augustine says, if the Eucharist itself is of no effect?
Perhaps ask the question...why did so many believe her and fear her?
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.