[HarleyD]

My understanding on the Eucharist from which I've just finished reviewing was that there were some differences of opinions even in the very early church. Augustine viewed it symbolically while others had other opinions.

I'm pinging my GRPL friends who may be able to shed more light on this.

[siunevada]

I'm pinging my GRPL friends who may be able to shed more light on this.

Somehow, I don't think we'll get this wrapped up any time soon.

After my prior post, I read an article by Fr. George Rutler that had this little gem in it:

The rising starlet Hans Küng told the cosmic meteor Cuthbert that Vatican II had ushered in a new regard for Scriptures that would heal the Protestant wounds. The dean replied as if casually flicking dandruff, “Good luck to you! We Protestants have been arguing for 400 years as to what are the agreed results of the Holy Ghost.”

Cuthbert Aikman Simpson (Christ Church college in Oxford, where Simpson was the Very Reverend dean from 1959 to 1969.)

Love it!

[fidelis]

Augustine held a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist? I think not :

(Forgive the caps and emphasis in the text--that's how they were copied and pasted)

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

"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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

[Aquinasfan]

I'm pinging my GRPL friends who may be able to shed more light on this.

What was true then is true now. Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, and other denominations believe that the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic.

The principle of "Scripture alone" didn't provide unified Christian teaching regarding this important topic. Nor has it ever regarding a whole range of teachings, ranging from the necessity of Baptism to double-predestination. This is important to keep in mind considering our Lord's express desire that "they may all be one." Has Sola Scriptura promoted Christian unity?