Catholics say the same thing so, if you believe that Catholics claim to eat Jesus' liver then no wonder you don't accept the teaching. There's a difference between the physical and the substantive. We don't say He is physically present in the Eucharist (as if we are chewing on a piece of meat) but He is substantially present (and this literally present)
With that said I guess we are just going to have to continue to disagree about what St Augustine is talking about in the Tractate 25 quote you always post. I say it's about the insufficiency of carnal food to give everlasting life, you say it's about the Eucharistic feast. Fine.
If it is about the Eucharist though then you (and anyone who agrees with you) claims St Augustine was teaching there is no need to celebrate the Last Supper. That is, there's no reason at all to even receive the "symbolic" Eucharist, because, after all, just "believe, and you have eaten already".
So don't even eat a symbol. "Just believe".
It's amazing though you quote his sermon 227. Here's another portion of that sermon:
"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. (Augustine, Sermons, 227)."
Now I suppose you will continue to see that through the lens of "believe and you have eaten already" and I can't help that. Again, we just disagree what was being discussed at that time. I submit though to anyone else reading this post to read the entire paragraph again. It's clear (at least to me) the Saint is stressing the need for faith in Christ first, before anything else. And that the food He provides is not food to fill a belly, but grant life eternal.
""12. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor 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. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:”13 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”14 For that reason, He willeth not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that worketh by love.15 Nor did He say, This is your work; but, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent;” so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord. And because He invited them to faith, they, on the other hand, were still asking for signs by which they might believe. See if the Jews do not ask for signs. “They said therefore rate Him, What sign doest thou, that we may see and believe thee? what dost thou work?” Was it a trifle that they were fed with five loaves? They knew this indeed, but they preferred manna from heaven to this food. But the Lord Jesus declared Himself to be such an one, that He was superior to Moses. For Moses dared not say of Himself that He gave, “not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth to eternal life.” Jesus promised something greater than Moses gave. By Moses indeed was promised a kingdom, and a land flowing with milk and honey, temporal peace, abundance of children, health of body, and all other things, temporal goods indeed, yet in figure spiritual; because in the Old Testament they were promised to the old man. They considered therefore the things promised by Moses, and they considered the things promised by Christ. The former promised a full belly on the earth, but of the meat which perisheth; the latter promised, “not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life.” They gave attention to Him that promised the more, but just as if they did not yet see Him do greater things. They considered therefore what sort of works Moses had done, and they wished yet some greater works to be done by Him who promised them such great things. What, say they, doest thou, that we may believe thee? And that thou mayest know that they compared those former miracles with this and so judged these miracles which Jesus did as being less; “Our fathers,” say they, “did eat manna in the wilderness.” But what is manna? Perhaps ye despise it. “As it is written, He gave them manna to eat.” By Moses our fathers received bread from heaven, and Moses did not say to them, “Labor for the meat which perisheth not.” Thou promisest “meat which perisheth not, but which endureth to eternal life;” and yet thou workest not such works as Moses did. He gave, not barley loaves, but manna from heaven."
Note be didn't say, "eating the meat is a metaphor" he said "to eat the meat, first believe, and then you have eaten already". This is not something that is foreign to a Catholic. You have to believe Jesus first before consuming the consecrated bread. Otherwise it's of no effect.
So the message here is the same. Just because he doesn't say "then receive Him in the Eucharist" doesn't mean St Augustine doesn't believe we shouldn't *also* do that too.
It's a classic case of just taking a specific teaching about a specific topic and applying it more broadly than it should.
Go ahead and reply I don't see any reason to continue. I get it, you disagree. Imagine that, a critic if the Catholic Church disagrees with something it says. If you need to say that again in so many other words though, go for it. It won't show anything new though.
I said "liver" since there are Catholic "miracles", which have been posted on FR, which involve wafers transforming into chunks of a liver or a heart in order to demonstrate their true nature. But, probably, it is a piece of a donkey or a chicken that the priest put into a bottle.
I say it's about the insufficiency of carnal food to give everlasting life,
Who cares what you say? What matters is what you can demonstrate. Your assertion is meaningless if you can't answer what I have said. Either Augustine is talking about the "meat" that comes down from heaven, or he isn't. And, obviously, I have proven the former, while you have failed at the latter.
That is, there's no reason at all to even receive the "symbolic" Eucharist, because, after all, just "believe, and you have eaten already".
There is plenty of reason to receive the Eucharist, but not to accomplish what is already done spiritually. It is, as Augustine puts it, to "set our hearts on heaven" and to "treasure unity" amongst ourselves. It is a way of celebrating what has occurred spiritually, not carnally. Why? Because we also are the bread, and the wine, which is offered on the table. Augustine even goes at some length describing how the Christian is like bread, molded unto Christ.
It's amazing though you quote his sermon 227. Here's another portion of that sermon:
I quoted this myself, and none of it contradicts what I have explained are his teachings. Lutherans and even Reformed Presbyterians have these same teachings and speak in the same way. You must come to understand the difference between them and the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation, which is alien to the scripture, as well as placing salvation into the hands of a carnal act, rather than a spiritual one.
Note be didn't say, "eating the meat is a metaphor" he said "to eat the meat, first believe, and then you have eaten already". This is not something that is foreign to a Catholic. You have to believe Jesus first before consuming the consecrated bread.
Your very own words contradict it. If you have "eaten already," then consuming the consecrated bread is a redundancy.