St Augustine on the Eucharist

[Thomas]

St Augustine is invariably assumed to be a 'negative' theologian, or rather a theologian with a negative view of man. This is an over-simplistic accusation and is far from the truth — the citation below is itself an indicator of that fact.

On speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he said:
"Be what you see; receive what you are." (sermon 272).

It's a stunning concept, and a stunning affirmation of a man who is recognised as a Doctor of the Catholic Church. It's a concept that even few Catholics probably understand (but I'm not here to discuss the poverty of Catholic catechesis) and few investigate (likewise the poverty of Catholic mystagogia).

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

St Augustine is invariably assumed to be a 'negative' theologian, or rather a theologian with a negative view of man. This is an over-simplistic accusation and is far from the truth — the citation below is itself an indicator of that fact.

On speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he said:
"Be what you see; receive what you are." (sermon 272).

It's a stunning concept, and a stunning affirmation of a man who is recognised as a Doctor of the Catholic Church. It's a concept that even few Catholics probably understand (but I'm not here to discuss the poverty of Catholic catechesis) and few investigate (likewise the poverty of Catholic mystagogia).

God bless,

Thomas

Maybe you should be...

What with the folks that are leaving the church....

And the folks that distrust the church....

And the folks that are raised with prejudice against the church...

I don't know when the church changed....but folks that I know in their 50's and 60's left because all they ever saw was the catechism...they never read the bible, saw a bible during their years of Catholic school and church going...

They left because as they questioned they were stonewalled and decided they no longer trusted the man behind the curtain...

 

[Lunitik]

"Be what you see; receive what you are."

This is an awesome statement if not aligned with the eucharist, and instead this thought is applied to everything we are presented through life. When ego is dropped, we come to realize that we can turn no where without realizing God, even indeed if we look within. The Bible says that we have our being in God, and he in us, thus we can conclude that even looking within we can find him.

We are also told exactly what we are looking for, we are told that if we have not known love, we have not known God, for God is love. Contemplate on the these two ideas, that everything within and without is love, and this is God... beautiful. We can also conclude that were there is not love, there is not God. This makes it fairly easy to work out what God's will might be: the spreading of love throughout humanity... to remove all shadows which block the light of love from reaching in.

 

[Lunitik]

Also, the eucharist represents Christ if I am not mistaken, so when taking on the eucharist you are instructed to be what it represents - Christ. This is then confirmed, for you are told to receive what you are - Christ. In this is the mystery of oneness, you too can partake in the trinity, the separate but same. This is exactly what every faith teaches with respect to enlightenment, and confirms completely my statements that man can attain Christ-hood through this mystery. It is strange, then, that becoming Christ is considered heretical, that there are so many statements representing plurality. It gives a whole new presentation of the shepherd and sheep, it is an invitation into enlightenment - Christ is showing the way.

This is quite awesome, but as I stated in the other thread, it is not at all unique. Enlightened beings are divine, this is the true religion, the re-binding into the source, the realization of oneness - that you never left, were never separated from. Favouring one method of attainment over another only limits your chances of finding a master to assist in your path, to provide experienced and personalized guidance towards this attainment. This must be the realization of interfaith dialogue over time, disputes must cease for this serves the opposite function of binding us, this only segregates.

 

[Lunitik]

Why then does the Bible never discuss enlightenment? Well, it does, it just calls it something else - the Kingdom.

Luke 9:27 "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
Luke 17:21 "nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

There are other examples, but many believe the Kingdom of God is synonymous with heaven, perhaps it is since the descriptions align with the experience. Clearly, it does not represent something in the afterlife, though.

It is also substantial to note that the word translated as God actually can merely mean King, Lord, or Master, and the word is used in the Bible itself to refer to Pharaoh. People attempt to distinguish between God and god, but Hebrew simply doesn't utilize case. Thus, when referring to God, it can simply mean that the teacher is referring to his own master, his own teacher. Jesus is the Christian teacher, thus it is correct to call him God merely because of this.

 

[Lunitik]

To show that you are part of Christ, and thus part of the trinity:

1 Corinthians 12:12-27
New International Version (NIV)
Unity and Diversity in the Body

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

 

[Lunitik]

The only real difference is how the message is conveyed, terminology used, but they are all the same, every religion teaches exactly the same and it can be no other way. Any difference is merely your perception, your lack of true understanding - I will not place blame on any organization for this misunderstanding.

In the East, faiths maintain their core teachings of attainment, their focus is on realization of the oneness expressed in the unity - not just knowing it, realizing it for yourself. In the West, faiths teach that rituals and external things can make it so, it is even commended in the Bible to not see (for yourself) and still believe. You are told it is good to have the blind leading the blind, for not even the priests have seen in most of the world. I am merely saying that you can realize you are part of the oneness of everything, you can experience this, it does not need to be taken on blind faith.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe you should be...

Hi Wil —
I'm not qualified to discuss your issues. From my distant and removed experience, there seems to be a lot of problems resulting from the US following the liberal agenda that tried to hijack Vatican II. But my solution would probably not be the one you're looking for ...

Then again, when theology and catechetics in the US is good, it's very, very good. You've produced some first-class theologians (Avery Dulles, for one, Thomas Merton, with certain provisos) and some first class work.

I think you probably only deal with the fall-out, and judge the whole thing from them. It's bound to give you a jaundiced viewpoint. Maybe you should try and contact some Catholics to get a balanced perspective?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Thomas, I'm surrounded by Catholics. My son's scout troop was over 50% Catholic, for 7 years I met with them every week, camped once a month....broke camp early on Sunday mornings and raced home so the kids and adults could get to mass and not goto hell. I sat around the campfire and our camp kitchens listening to their stories and beliefs....and all their issues came long before Vatican II. To me, John Paul was the biggest breath of fresh air they've seen in a long time... to them, it confused them, as they were all positive from thier upbringing that they were the only one and true religion and the restuvus were headed to hell.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, I'm surrounded by Catholics...

Then the situation in the US is worse than I thought.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lunitik —

This is an awesome statement if not aligned with the eucharist, and instead this thought is applied to everything we are presented through life.

The Eucharist is not a realisation of a universal principle, the Eucharist is the Principle.

The Bible says that we have our being in God, and he in us, thus we can conclude that even looking within we can find him.

Indeed, because 'looking within', whether ourselves or something else, implies looking for the First Cause, the source and origin of all. As man is not self-created, or self-subsistent ...

This order of awareness Augustine called capax dei — the capacity for God.

Contemplate on the these two ideas, that everything within and without is love, and this is God... beautiful.

'Love' is a much-abused term. True love is the gift of self to another, but more often than not, 'love' in a cultural context is the desire to possess another, or possess oneself ...

The Gospel of Matthew states so quite plainly:
"Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me... " Matthew 25:34-36
It's quite simple, really ... everything else, as a friend used to say, is toothpaste.

 

[Thomas]

Also, the eucharist represents Christ if I am not mistaken, so when taking on the eucharist you are instructed to be what it represents - Christ.

Sadly you are mistaken — the Eucharist does not represent Christ, it is Christ, this is fundamental.

Favouring one method of attainment over another only limits your chances of finding a master to assist in your path

A saying from the Desert Fathers:
"A beginner who goes from one monastery to another is like a wild animal who jumps this way and that for fear of the halter."

 

[Thomas]

Why then does the Bible never discuss enlightenment? Well, it does, it just calls it something else - the Kingdom.

Then why make an erroneous point to start with?

There are other examples, but many believe the Kingdom of God is synonymous with heaven, perhaps it is since the descriptions align with the experience.

That's an error of interpretation. The descriptions are analogous, not experiential. You have to move beyond the experiential.

It is also substantial to note that the word translated as God actually can merely mean King, Lord, or Master, and the word is used in the Bible itself to refer to Pharaoh.

Not in the New Testament. The word is theos and has a definite meaning. Another title is kyrios which indeed can have many meanings, so it's important to determine what the Tradition means when it deploys the term, not what the lexicon offers. Context is everything.

 

[Thomas]

To show that you are part of Christ, and thus part of the trinity ...

Not part of, participate in. The Trinity was there before creation. And the Trinity is One God, not three gods ... nor is it an aggregate of creation.

 

[Thomas]

The only real difference is how the message is conveyed, terminology used, but they are all the same, every religion teaches exactly the same and it can be no other way.

Well more enlightened souls have said quite the reverse ... and as your knowledge of Christian doctrine is flawed, your argument is not quite as conclusive as you might suppose.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Well more enlightened souls have said quite the reverse ... and as your knowledge of Christian doctrine is flawed, your argument is not quite as conclusive as you might suppose.

Your basis for them being more enlightened would be... what exactly?

If you are differentiating, you are simply not even on the path to enlightenment, this is fundamental.

 

[Lunitik]

The Eucharist is not a realisation of a universal principle, the Eucharist is the Principle.

You are disputing semantics, you are actually in agreement.

'Love' is a much-abused term. True love is the gift of self to another, but more often than not, 'love' in a cultural context is the desire to possess another, or possess oneself

Pure love is not targeted or attached to anything, it is love for loves sake.

The Gospel of Matthew states so quite plainly:
"Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me... " Matthew 25:34-36
It's quite simple, really ... everything else, as a friend used to say, is toothpaste.

These verses describes enlightenment if you would but know.

 

[Lunitik]

Sadly you are mistaken — the Eucharist does not represent Christ, it is Christ, this is fundamental.

How exactly does this effect my point?

A saying from the Desert Fathers:
"A beginner who goes from one monastery to another is like a wild animal who jumps this way and that for fear of the halter."

And yet, your understanding is not complete because you rely on a single perspective of the truth.

 

[Lunitik]

Then why make an erroneous point to start with?

It is not erroneous, it is merely more generic.

That's an error of interpretation. The descriptions are analogous, not experiential. You have to move beyond the experiential.

I have experienced it, and read the words describing heaven in the Bible, they are quite similar.

Not in the New Testament. The word is theos and has a definite meaning. Another title is kyrios which indeed can have many meanings, so it's important to determine what the Tradition means when it deploys the term, not what the lexicon offers. Context is everything.

It is quite unlikely Jesus spoke Greek, for it and Latin were languages of business in the ancient world. Jesus was a peasant, he was an ascetic, he was not a business man. It is almost certain Jesus was of the Essene order, everything questioned about Jesus today actually aligns with this group.

 

[Lunitik]

Not part of, participate in. The Trinity was there before creation. And the Trinity is One God, not three gods ... nor is it an aggregate of creation.

Again with the semantics... Jesus was a human being, Christ is the Son... Jesus, through enlightenment, taught others to take on the Son, but all people can do so, this is exactly what the Sheppard is steering us towards.

I could go in depth into the occultism of this, it is quite well known if you care to discover it.