Christian: Real Presence

[true blood]

How very Christian of you.... "Doulos" eh? :areyoucra
They are fairly easy questions tb... don't blame me because you can't explain your theology with any clarity.... and I really don't care for your attitude, so I'll bow out and reserve comments for more charitable Christians.

Scott

Now Scott, I read one of your posts where you threatened a poster what you would do to him if by chance you found him in a dark alley, so don't play word games with me. If you want to bow out because you have been defeated, be my guest. Go pretend to drink blood and flesh so ya can cop your real presense feeling. Me, I'll be at the communion table daily giving thanks to God for physical and spiritual health thanks to the accomplishments of Christ Jesus, the Lamb of God.

 

[Aqualung]

Once again... you have failed to explain what Christ accomplished by his death ... please try again.

He died to break the bands of death. When adam and Eve sinned, they brought death upon the entire human race. Jesus died to be resurected (you can't be resurected if you don't die). He was resurected that we might be, too.

 

[Scott1]

Now Scott, I read one of your posts where you threatened a poster what you would do to him if by chance you found him in a dark alley, so don't play word games with me.

You can't seem to get anything you read right... it was a tounge-in-cheek reference to Ryan's former Catholic TEACHERS.

Peace be with you,
Scott

 

[Scott1]

He died to break the bands of death. When adam and Eve sinned, they brought death upon the entire human race. Jesus died to be resurected (you can't be resurected if you don't die). He was resurected that we might be, too.

There ya go... now that's an answer... you've gotta mention His resurection or His death was meaningless.

 

[athanasius]

Of coarse Jesus is truly, sacramentally, corporally, and mystically present(John 6: 50-58) in the eucharist. Amen! The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is something that the early Christians unanimously agreed on. It wasn't until 1500 years later that the protestants would alter this biblical and historical doctrine and make it a symbolic or merely spiritual presence. The Church has Scripture, Tradition, and Eucharistic Miracles on her side to prove this dogma of faith.

Peace to you all
Athanasius

 

[writer]

85 Of coarse Jesus is truly, sacramentally, corporally, and mystically present(John 6: 50-58) in the eucharist. Amen!
Jn 6 is before He established His Table (Mt 26). It's not about His Table. It's about Him. His Table's about Him

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is something that the early Christians unanimously agreed on. It wasn't until 1500 years later that the protestants would alter this...
Christ's really present with His believers because He's risen (Mt 28:20). Not because He turns something nonhuman into Him.
The early Christians in the NT including the apostles, and Christ Himself, did not agree with any "false presence" of Christ in His Supper.
For instance, Augustine of Hippo, around 400, interpreted properly where he said in his On The Psalms XCIX section 8, touching on John 6:
"He instructed them, and says to them, 'It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended to you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will give life. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."

...biblical and historical doctrine and make it a symbolic or merely spiritual presence.
"The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit," wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:45). Christ, in resurrection, not only rose bodily, but also became a life-giving Spirit, His humanity incorporated into the Holy Spirit (Jn 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17), becoming "the Spirit" in common NT parlance (cf Rev 22:17; Gal 3:2).
He (the Spirit) isn't a "mere" thing. He's the Triune God, processed through incarnation, human life, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and out-pouring, to be the regeneration and life of any and all who receive Him by believing into His name.
Jesus Christ.
Thus comprising them to build them up into Him, His Body, to be our life, enjoyment, and life-supply for eternity and now, to be God's wife as the New Jerusalem. As the early Athanasius and others said succintly: "God became man to make man God."
In God's life and in His nature. But not in His Godhead

...this dogma of faith.
Neither to believe nor to disbelieve that bread and wine at the Lord's Supper are symbolic are "dogma of faith" per the NT

65 ...because it has been the foundation of Christianity (along with the Bishop) for about 2,000 years.
Christianty, or that Christianity of which the gentleman speaks, are one thing.
Christ is another

60 Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. 1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood.
To the contrary, dear Scott: "Touto" = "this"; "estin" = "is"; "to" = "the"; "soma" = "body"; "mou" = "mine"

Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
To the contrary, dear sir: He didn't say "this becomes My body"

Protestants (this means you true blood)...
To the contrary, one need not be "Protestant," nor take any such label, to be non-Roman Catholic. Just as believers martyred by Catholicism before 1500 needed no such label to either be Christian or non-RC

...must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood."
To the contrary, as post 56 tries to point out: metaphors both exist, use the word "is" or similar form of the verb, and don't use comparison words such as "represents" "symbolizes" "like" "as" to make their comparison. Both in English, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and probably every other language that's existed or exists in the world

However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."
Like He did when He said "I'm the light" (Jn 8:12), "I'm the gate" (10:9); or as Paul, the apostle, did when he wrote "you may be a new lump" (1 Cor 5:7)

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?"
To the contrary: Paul does not insert any adjective before his word "participation" in 10:16.

Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand?
He's asking rhetorically and negatively: "is it NOT the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn't it the fellowship of the body of Christ?"

No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood.
To the contrary: Paul duzn't utilize any extra word before "koinonia" (participation), an adjective. Nor duz he write "actual."

Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.
Actual participation in Christ's blood and body is spiritual. Since, as the same Paul wrote in the same book: "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit." And his same Lord in the same Bible said: "It's the Spirit who gives life. The flesh [even His flesh in the way of physical eating] profits nothing" (Jn 6:63; 1 Cor 15:45).
As Augustine of Hippo (around 400) said in his Tractate 26 (XXVI), section 19, on John 6:
"we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eating and drinking signifies."
And in section 12:
"'This then is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.' But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he who eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth."
Thanx

 

[athanasius]

St Augustine does teach the real presence of Christ in the eucharist; One must always read everything augustines says about the eucharist and not just piecemeal.

Augustine


"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).


Again the protestants have the burden of proof when proving thier doctrine of the eucharist. The early Christians including Agustine and Ignatius all taught the that the eucharist was the literal corporal body of Christ. remember Ignatius was taught by the apostle John Himself who wrote (John 6:48-58) And St. Ignatius like all the fathers interprets this literally:

Ignatius of Antioch

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Also we have 2000 years of eucharistic miracles to show that thew scripture and teaching of the fathers was correct and that the eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Amen!

 

[athanasius]

That last comment was not mean to be taken as a dialogue with Writer. I just wanted to show to everyone that Augustine did in fact teach the real presence fo Jesus in the eucharist like Catholics do. Of coarse he would Agustine was a Catholic bishop. But then again so were all early Christians until the reformation Amen!

 

[writer]

Augustine of Hippo in fact taught not the false presence of Jesus in a Eucharist like Catholicism. Just like he taught that Mary had sin, not a sinless Mary. Although. But he did foolishly teach Mary a perpetual married virgin. As seen by his statements in posts 86 and following: Augustine didn't teach that a Eucharist was the literal physical body of Christ. Which it isn't. Augustine wasn't a Roman Catholic bishop. Roman Catholicism proper didn't come into existence until around 600 with Gregory 1, though of course some germinal elements are visible b4.

One should read everything someone, such as Augustines says, about a topic. Not merely piecemeal.

From his On The Psalms (Explanations On The Psalms) XXXIII (33), section 1, touching on Matthew 26:26:
“And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and IN A MANNER carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.”
Emphasis added. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine.html

From his Messages 227, repeating the metaphor of Jesus his Lord:
"I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ."

From his Messages 272, repeating the Biblical metaphor:
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction."

From his Messages On New Testament Lessons LXII, section 5, on Luke 14:16:
"He sighed as though after distant things, and the Bread Himself was sitting down before them. Who is the Bread of the kingdom of God, but He who says, 'I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven'? Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith [not with "ex opere operato"]. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us..."

From his Message On New Testament Lessons XXVII (27), section 4; and XXX (30), section 5:
"They came to the Lord's table, and in faith drank that Blood, which in their fury they had shed/In faith they drank the Blood of Christ"

From his Messages on NT Lessons LXXXI, sections 1 and 2, concerning John 6:53:
"For He spoke to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink. The faithful recognize the Sacrament of the faithful...'Except you shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you shall have no life in you;' (and this that He said concerning life, who else said it but the Life Itself? But that man shall have death, not life, who shall think that the Life is false)...Do you imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which you see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you?...eat Life, drink Life; you shall have life, and the Life is entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christt shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, 'It is the Spirit That gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you,' says He, 'that believe not.'...But in order to teach us that this very believing is matter of gift, not of deserving, He says, 'As I have said unto you, no man comes unto Me, except it were given him of My Father.'...In such wise do you come too to Christ; do not conceive of long journeyings; where you believe, there you come. For unto Him who is everywhere we come by love, not by sailing."


Ignatius of Antioch was not taught by the apostle John either personally, nor by Scripture, that literally eating Jesus physically is either possible or would confer any benefit even if possible. Regardless of any of Ignatius' own confusions on the subjects of either John 6 or Mt 26:26


63 Can't God have truly given them His flesh without using the flesh He just happened to have on Hid Body at the moment? He is God afterall.
He's not pointless.

It was just this that confused the Jews, which is why the LEFT Jesus. And after they left, did He call them back, saying, you misunderstood me? No He did not. Why did He not?
Becuz that wasn't His way. As throughout John. He's not for knowledge, but for Life.
In any case, He DID fully "explain" Himself in Jn 6:
"He who comes to Me [personally, not impersonally] shall by no means hunger, and he who believes into Me shall by no means ever thirst," 6:35.
"Everyone who beholds the Son and believes into Him should have eternal life," 6:40.
"I am the bread that came down out of heaven [not: bread becomes Me]," 6:41.
"He who believes has eternal life," 6:47.
6:32-51a speaks of His incarnation. 51b-55 of His slaying. 56-59 of His resurrection to indwell. 60-62 of His ascension. 63-65 of His becoming a life-giving Spirit. 66-71 of His embodiment and realization in the Word of Life.
"This word's hard; who can hear it?---It's the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing..." 6:60, 63.
He even summarizes by expressly telling them He's not speaking of eating Him physically, eating His physical flesh physically.
Lastly, to repeat, John 6 occurs long before His institution of His Supper at the end of His life, and's about Him and relationship with Him. Not in the least directly addressing "Eucharist"

GUILT of the Body and Bloody of the Lord. How can that be possible if it is NOT actually the Body and Blood of the Lord?
By what the same Paul wrote to the same Corinthians:
"So then we, from now [His resurrection] on, know no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no longer," 2 Cor 5:16

as a last question: What on Earth did Jesus mean when He said all of those "cannabilistic" thigns in John 6? For them to not be taken literally they have to mean something ELSE. What is it? The symbolic interpretation would be "Who ever eats and drinks my blood (i.e. presetues and destroys me) will gain eternal life.
Per the Lord's words in John 6, eating and drinking Him is coming to Him as a Person; and believing into Him. Not destroying Him. In addition, this isn't "symbolic" as much as Spiritual. As Aug said:
"Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended to you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will give life. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."
Thanx

 

[athanasius]

I am sorry but I have to say something. May God bless Mr Writer I am not trying to pick on him and I do not want to debate him, I just want to clarify things for those who are reading this.

To say Augustine wasn’t a Roman Catholic Bishop is simply just plain false and historically dishonest as almost every historian of church history would admit. Even the Baptist Scholar Dale Moody from the Moody bible institute admitted that Augustine was a Roman Catholic bishop.

Augustine did teach the sinlessness of Mary. To say he didn’t just shows your unfamiliarity with his writings;

Augustine
"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135

How about this quote from Augustine:

Augustine

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Does this sound protestant to anyone??
How about Augustine on the Authority of Tradition

Augustine

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Does this sound like Catholic or protestant theology to anyone?? Obviously it is clearly Catholic.

How about Augustine on Infant baptism:
Augustine

"What the Catholic Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

does that sound protestant to anyone? He uses the terms sacrament, infant baptism, and Catholic??

How about Augustine on Purgatory ;

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).


Do protestants teach purgatory or do catholics??????

How about augustine on the papacy which did exist in his day.

Augustine


"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Augustine on the primacy of Peters successors the Popes:

Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).


Here Augustine List shows the primacy of Peter and then list Peters successors(or Popes) of the early church. This is the same Papal list that Protestant Church historian Dr JND Kelly gives in his book Oxfor dictionary of Popes which Mr writer denies and that I listed in the other forum. Writer seem to really ignore history as whole.

Agustine was a Roman Catholic theologian and Bishop. Mr writer denies this but Church historians do not. A Secular Hisotrical source (Merriums websters collegiate encyclopedia) list St Augustine as a “Roman Catholic theologian”(Page 111). Almost every single historical source I know of list Augustine as a Roman or latin rite Catholic theologian. Protestant early church historian JND Kelly list Augustine as a Roman Catholic Bishop on Page 413 of his book “Early Christian Doctrines”

Again protestant church historian JND Kelly shows in his book that Augustine taught the real presence of Christ just like the Catholics do. Augustine also taught the spiritual presence also just like Catholics do. You have read all of augustine and study Catholic theology to see they are saying the exact same thing and Kelly shows this.

Mr writer denies all this historical evidence. No Church historian with a Doctorate degree in history and patrology *(Church fathers) can tell Mr writer anything. No matter how many actual writings of Augustine you show him, no matter how many historical sources from Protestant, Catholic and secular venues you quote for Mr writer showing him Augustine was a Roman Catholic , Mr writer simply must try to fudge over or ignore the historical info because it does not jive well with Mr Writers personal theological outlook.

This is because if Mr writer admitted to himself that Augustine was a Roman catholic, then maybe Mr writer would be wrong. Mr writer has clearly shown himself to be ignorant of history and doesn’t care a lick about what professional historical church scholars have to say on these issue. Mr writer is never wrong according to Mr writer.

Again he shows us not just in the area of scripture but also int he area of history that he follows his own dogma called Sola writer. Only writer is correct about the early fathers. Only writer is correct about how to interpret the scripture(Ask Baerly). Only writers is right and his opinion overrules all historical sources, and scripture scholars and fathers. That is sad.

Ignatius of Anticioch was taught by the Apostle John himself as another Church Historian William Jurgens shows in his historical book “the Faith of the early Fatehrs (Page 17)”.

Im sure Mr writer will ignore this or say it isn’t true. The reason why writer wants to say it isn’t true is because Ignatius taught the literal interpretation of John 6:48-58 which deals with the eucharist. Ignatius who was taught by John who wrote that gospel taught that the eucharist really was the flesh and blood of Jesus and only heretics denied it. Here is what Ignatius had to say:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). *


I am sorry But I could not stand Mr writer saying false things about Jesus Catholic Church. If he wants to ignore all the historical facts and church scholars and create his own history then that fine for him. I have shown what historical books one can look to for evidence I also have listed Augustines actual quotes.

Again please read “The faith of the early fathers” by william Jurgens and “Early Christian Doctrines” by JND Kelly(Protestant) and Merrium websters collegiate encyclopedia(Secular) to see that Augustine was clearly a Roman Catholic.

God bless you all

Athansius

 

[athanasius]

I am sorry but I have to say something. May God bless Mr Writer I am not trying to pick on him and I do not want to debate him, I just want to clarify things for those who are reading this.

To say Augustine wasn’t a Roman Catholic Bishop is simply just plain false and historically dishonest as almost every historian of church history would admit. Even the Baptist Scholar Dale Moody from the Moody bible institute admitted that Augustine was a Roman Catholic bishop.

Augustine did teach the sinlessness of Mary. To say he didn’t just shows your unfamiliarity with his writings;

Augustine
"We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135
?
How about this quote from Augustine:

Augustine

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Does this sound protestant to anyone??
How about Augustine on the Authority of Tradition

Augustine

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Does this sound like Catholic or protestant theology to anyone?? Obviously it is clearly Catholic.

How about Augustine on Infant baptism:
Augustine

"What the Catholic Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

does that sound protestant to anyone? He uses the terms sacrament, infant baptism, and Catholic??

How about Augustine on Purgatory ;

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).


Do protestants teach purgatory or do catholics??????

How about augustine on the papacy which did exist in his day.

Augustine


"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Augustine on the primacy of Peters successors the Popes:

Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).


Here Augustine List shows the primacy of Peter and then list Peters successors(or Popes) of the early church. This is the same Papal list that Protestant Church historian Dr JND Kelly gives in his book Oxfor dictionary of Popes which Mr writer denies and that I listed in the other forum. Writer seem to really ignore history as whole.

Agustine was a Roman Catholic theologian and Bishop. Mr writer denies this but Church historians do not. A Secular Hisotrical source (Merriums websters collegiate encyclopedia) list St Augustine as a “Roman Catholic theologian”(Page 111). Almost every single historical source I know of list Augustine as a Roman or latin rite Catholic theologian. Protestant early church historian JND Kelly list Augustine as a Roman Catholic Bishop on Page 413 of his book “Early Christian Doctrines”

Again protestant church historian JND Kelly shows in his book that Augustine taught the real presence of Christ just like the Catholics do. Augustine also taught the spiritual presence also just like Catholics do. You have read all of augustine and study Catholic theology to see they are saying the exact same thing and Kelly shows this.

Mr writer denies all this historical evidence. No Church historian with a Doctorate degree in history and patrology *(Church fathers) can tell Mr writer anything. No matter how many actual writings of Augustine you show him, no matter how many historical sources from Protestant, Catholic and secular venues you quote for Mr writer showing him Augustine was a Roman Catholic , Mr writer simply must try to fudge over or ignore the historical info because it does not jive well with Mr Writers personal theological outlook.

This is because if Mr writer admitted to himself that Augustine was a Roman catholic, then maybe Mr writer would be wrong. Mr writer has clearly shown himself to be ignorant of history and doesn’t care a lick about what professional historical church scholars have to say on these issue. Mr writer is never wrong according to Mr writer.

Again he shows us not just in the area of scripture but also int he area of history that he follows his own dogma called Sola writer. Only writer is correct about the early fathers. Only writer is correct about how to interpret the scripture(Ask Baerly). Only writers is right and his opinion overrules all historical sources, and scripture scholars and fathers. That is sad.

Ignatius of Anticioch was taught by the Apostle John himself as another Church Historian William Jurgens shows in his historical book “the Faith of the early Fatehrs (Page 17)”.

Im sure Mr writer will ignore this or say it isn’t true. The reason why writer wants to say it isn’t true is because Ignatius taught the literal interpretation of John 6:48-58 which deals with the eucharist. Ignatius who was taught by John who wrote that gospel taught that the eucharist really was the flesh and blood of Jesus and only heretics denied it. Here is what Ignatius had to say:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). *


I am sorry But I could not stand Mr writer saying false things about Jesus Catholic Church. If he wants to ignore all the historical facts and church scholars and create his own history then that fine for him. I have shown what historical books one can look to for evidence I also have listed Augustines actual quotes.

Again please read “The faith of the early fathers” by william Jurgens and “Early Christian Doctrines” by JND Kelly(Protestant) and Merrium websters collegiate encyclopedia(Secular) to see that Augustine was clearly a Roman Catholic.

God bless you all

Athansius

 

[writer]

42 Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
To the contrary of post 42's claim: Ign's apparent reference to Jn 6 doesn't deny his Lord's claim in 6:63 that "It's the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing."
Additionally, Ign himself in his own comment spiritualizes: "blood...is love"

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Here Ign appears to merely repeat his Lord's metaphor in Matthew 26:26, except to change the word "body" to "flesh"

Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Paul taught that food's sanctified by prayer in 1 Tim 4:5. That means uncommon. Per his quote, Justine appears to do no more than a) say the same of the bread and wine on the Lord's Table; and b) repeat the same metaphor of his Master in Mt 26:26 except changing His word "body" to "flesh"

48 Scripture and history clearly show that the Eucharist is more than "spirit form" or symbolic
Scripture and history and common sense clearly show that bread and wine on the Lord's Table are only symbols

just as Christ came to us in physical form, not just in spirit form...
Christ came physically To come as the Spirit in resurrection. To come again physically at the end of this age

... he comes to me every day in the Eucharist---- both physically AND spiritually...
Christ, as the Spirit, is not limited in time and space the way Jesus was before He died and rose again. Which also means His Spirit is not limited to His Table meeting or location. But He's available everywhere at anytime.
2ndly, Christ does not incarnate in a nonhuman form such as bread and wine. Such a teaching's blasphemous if not idolatrous. Nor does He create them into Himself other than by His normal created process of digestion

Christ in the Eucharist... it has been, and always will be, the source and summit of the Christian faith.
His Table's very high. But He's source, summit, faith, and eternal. His Table's not

90 To say Augustine wasn’t a Roman Catholic Bishop is simply just plain false and historically dishonest as almost every historian of church history would admit.
Augustine's experience, practice and words matched his predecessor-North African Cyprian's statement concerning the church at large: "Neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops," from the seventh council of Carthage, concerning the baptism of heretics

the Baptist Scholar Dale Moody from the Moody bible institute admitted that Augustine was a Roman Catholic bishop.
D.L. Moody was mistaken in this regard

Augustine did teach the sinlessness of Mary.
To the contrary, in Aug's writing On The Psalms he wrote, properly, that "Mary had sin" like everybody else except Jesus

 

[athanasius]

Again I have done my work here. I have proven my point and showed that St Augustine was a Roman Catholic Bishop and theologian. I have listed several outside historical sources from some of the top Catholic, Protestant, and Secular historical Scholars Such as William Jurgens in his book(The Faith of the early fathers), Protestant sources such as Church historian JND Kelly in his historical work(Early Christian doctrines) and secular historical works such as(Merrium Websters collegiate encylopedia).

All of these Sources clearly state that Augustine WAS A Roman Catholic Bishop.

I have listed actual writings from Augustine to show that he was Roman catholic. I showed how Augustine himself taught Purgatory, The Primacy of Peter and his successors the Popes, Infant Baptism, the Authority of Apostolic tradition not just the bible alone, the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist, and the sinlessness of Mary.

It simply amazes me when I see someone like Mr writer deny that Augustine was a Roman Catholic Bishop given all the evidence I have just shown him not only from Augustines writings themselves but also from Protestant, secular, and Catholic Historical scholars alike.

Augustine could say something like “Jesus carried his own Body in his own hands" at the last supper and Mr writer would say “Thats not what Augustine meant”. Augustine could say “What you eyes see is mere bread but what your faith obliges you to believe is that the eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ”

and Mr writer would say “Well he didn’t mean that”

Augustine could and did say in one sermon on the eucharist:
“You know what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather whom you are eating and Whom you are drinking”( Augustine Sermon 272)

and Mr writer would still Deny that Augustine is talking about the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist.

Augustine could say that no one should question whether Mary sinned or not because Mary was given abundance of grace by Christ(Luke 1:28) to be sinless

and Mr writer would still say “Augustine taught Mary was a sinner”,even if the protestant and Catholic historians alike say that Augustine taught the sinlessness of Mary.

You see the problem here everyone is that Mr writer cannot admit he is in error. He can be shown from Protestant historians and secular historians that Augustine was a Catholic bishop and taught all these catholic things and he still denies it. Mr writer can look at a black piece of paper and swear it was white.

He knows Better than anyone with a doctorate in church history and Scripture. His word and opinion are without error. And only his word and opinion are without error. There is nothing new you can show him in scripture or church history. Only his understanding is the correct one. Even if the writings themselves and the Scholars themselves prove him wrong, he is Still right.

I believe if Jesus Christ himself came down and appeared to Writer and told him that Augustine was a Roman Catholic Bishop, Mr writer would argue with Jesus and tell Jesus he is wrong.

Mr writer has no way of proving that JND Kelly a well known Protestant Church historian is wrong about Augustine. Kelly says Augustine was a Roman Catholic bishop that held to the real literal presence of Jesus in the eucharist. Mr writer also cannot prove to us that he didn’t. Mr writer does not have the Doctorate in church history or Patrology.

Kelly does. Kelly isn’t even Catholic and he recognizes this from reading ALL of Augustines writings on the Eucharist. Mr writer also has to disprove secular historical sources like Merruim websters collegiate encyclopedia which also say Augusitne was a Roman Catholic bishop.

Again Sola writer comes out. Mr writer will not listen to anything but his own opinion and own private interpretation of Church history and Scripture.

Essentially Mr writer doesn’t even go by sola Scriptura, he goes by sola writer. Mr writer has made himself Pope. Pope Writer is infallible on everything and is never wrong. His teachings on history are free from Error regardless of what all the other historians say.

If Augustine says that Mary was sinless then just get out your black marker(Black highlighter) and fudge over it because Pope writers words are the true Words of God. Only Pope Writer knows how to interpret the scripture when it come to anything, especially Titius 3:5-7 and Baptism, just ask Mr Baerly. Oh great Pope writer you who know more than any historian or scripture Scholar.

Well, Pope writer there is really nothing more I can show you. You have blinded yourself to truth and have ignored all the resources because you and you alone have the truth, great infallible Pope Writer. I am going to kick the dust off my shoes and not throw Pearls (the beautiful life saving Catholic Gospel that Jesus gave us) to such swine.

Amen.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Essentially Mr writer doesn’t even go by sola Scriptura, he goes by sola writer.

Mr writer has made himself Pope. Pope Writer is infallible on everything and is never wrong. His teachings on history are free from Error regardless of what all the other historians say.

As do all Protestants.

I'm a pope, you're a pope (if you're a protestant, of course), everyone's a pope pope.

"Pope Angellous" - it has a wonderful ring to it.

Perhaps now they'll let me in to the Vatican library. I've been dying to read some of that stuff.

 

[writer]

Either brother Augustine agrees w/ Pelagius, his opponent in 415, whom Aug quotes in Aug's On Nature And Grace, 42 (36):

"'...the mother of our Lord and Savior, for of her,' [Pelagius] says, 'we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.' We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord..."

or Aug's simply saying out of his idea of honor to Christ he won't talk about the subject ("wish to raise no question").
My feeling is the latter. Tho it's possible Aug changed his view on this exceedingly small subject from when he said:

"[The Word] assumed flesh, of the same lump which had deserved death by sin. For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin"

about 10 years earlier in his On The Psalms, Psalm 35, section 14. Which is indisputably clear as to what the Bible told him.
In his On Forgiveness Of Sins, And Baptism, written about three years before his On Nature And Grace, Aug wrote:

"If, however, I am asked the second question which I have suggested,---whether there be a sinless man,---I believe there is not. For I rather believe the Scripture, which says: '...for in Your sight shall no man living be justified.'...'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us'"

8 (7). And:

"That illustrious testimony of God, therefore, in which Job is commended, is not contrary to the passage in which it is said, 'In Your sight shall no man living be justified;' for it does not lead us to suppose that in him there was nothing at all which might either by himself truly or by the Lord God rightly be blamed...For these are God's words concerning him: 'Have you considered my servant Job? For there is none like him on the earth, blameless, righteous, a true worshipper of God, who keeps himself from every evil work'"

17 (12). Sin and mankind's absolute need for the Savior, and reliance upon His grace rather than man's works, is the exact heart of Aug's dispute with Pelagius. Attempting to satisfy God with Our righteousness is an extremely subtle and natural tendency. And exactly what Martin Luther was enlightened and saved to combat in his encounter with the Pelagian religious system of his own day. Luther received much help from Paul, and also Augustine, in this regard.
Merci beaucoup

 

[sojourner]

Athanasius' argument, with the citing of Justin and Ignatius, is very compelling -- and pretty clear that these Church Fathers recognized the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic meal.

Christ in the Eucharist... it has been, and always will be, the source and summit of the Christian faith.
His Table's very high. But He's source, summit, faith, and eternal. His Table's not

The statement isn't in regard to the Table -- it's in regard to what (who) is on the Table. Furthermore, the statement is a correct one. The Church has always understood this to be the case.

 

[writer]

Athanasius' argument, with the citing of Justin and Ignatius, is very compelling
Care to share how you're compelled?

and pretty clear that these Church Fathers recognized the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic meal.
I wouldn't call them fathers of the church since the church existed before them. It's possible they, superstitiously, believed in false presence. From Ignatius' and Justin's quotes in posts 42, 92 it's pretty clear their quotes may be just as metaphorical as their Savior's word in Matthew 26:26 "This is My body"

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps you wouldn't call them "fathers." Many others do. And many others revere their teachings as authentic. Their beliefs cannot be proved (and have not been perceived by those within the historical Church) to be superstitious, nor can the real presence of Christ within the Eucharist be proven to be "false." One could easily say of the Eucharist that it is largely metaphorical in nature. But -- that metaphorical nature still does not deny the real presence of Christ therein.

Ultimately, this quibbling over Biblical interpretations and literal vs. metaphorical meaning, and real presence vs. "mere symbol" is not truly important to the issue at hand. What is important is the spiritual impact this sacrament has upon those who participate in it. Therein lies the most compelling evidence that Christ is, indeed, truly present in the meal.

 

[writer]

many others revere their teachings as authentic.
Who could argue their teachings r authentically theirs

Their beliefs cannot be proved (and have not been perceived by those within the historical Church) to be superstitious, nor can the real presence of Christ within the Eucharist be proven to be "false."
To the contrary: claiming that God incarnated in a vegetable body, or that God confected himself, or that a man did, is superstitous

One could easily say of the Eucharist that it is largely metaphorical in nature. But -- that metaphorical nature still does not deny the real presence of Christ therein.
Christ is embodied in His people, and in His speaking, not literally in the bread and wine of His Table

Ultimately, this quibbling over Biblical interpretations and literal vs. metaphorical meaning, and real presence vs. "mere symbol" is not truly important to the issue at hand. What is important is the spiritual impact this sacrament has upon those who participate in it. Therein lies the most compelling evidence that Christ is, indeed, truly present in the meal.
Christ, the last Adam, became a life-giving Spirit, wrote the apostle in 1 Corinthians 15. That's why He died. He's the Spirit, and the Spirit gives life, His flesh in the way of literal physical eating "profits nothing."
Thanks

 

[sojourner]

many others revere their teachings as authentic.
Who could argue their teachings r authentically theirs

Now you're being obtuse.

To the contrary: claiming that God incarnated in a vegetable body, or that God confected himself, or that a man did, is superstitous

The claim the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a theological stance.

Christ is embodied in His people, and in His speaking, not literally in the bread and wine of His Table

In your viewpoint.

His flesh in the way of literal physical eating "profits nothing."

If it "profits nothing," then why participate in it? I think that anyone who reasonable particpates in the Eucharist has experienced the profound spiritual effect that it has upon them. Something must be profited from it, or else we wouldn't do it. That profound spiritual experience is evidence that Christ is really present.