Anti-Catholic site says Augustine believed in metaphorical "Real Presence"

[dcarollo]

Found this site (actually someone sent to me – thinking this is the “TRUE” understanding of how we should view the eucharist).

justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

Excerpt…

**
Church Fathers on Transubstantiation**

Question: The early church fathers believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, as the following quotations confirm.

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 the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

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 are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. (Justin Martyr, First Apology).

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).

Answer:
Some church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual. Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: “The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense” (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215. Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus’ work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.
It is misleading to speak about “real presence” as if the term is equivalent to “transubstantiation.” Christians, who consider the bread and wine as strictly symbolical, also believe in the real presence of the Lord among them. Jesus said: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Surely Christ is present in the congregation of His people, as He promises, especially during the celebration of the Supper. His presence is real even though it is spiritual and not carnal.

 

[dcarollo]

Here’s the part about Augustine from the article…

---

Augustine

Catholic authors often misuse Augustine’s figurative writings to support the doctrine of transubstantiation. The following example is a case in point:

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, Sermons, 227).

Augustine believed that in a sense the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. “The bread…is the body of Christ…that cup…is the blood of Christ.” In what sense is he speaking? Is the substance of the bread changed into the body of Christ? Or is bread the body of Christ in a symbolic sense? We can readily discover the answer to this all important question.

First, looking at the context, it is clear that Augustine is using figurative language. Just as he asserts that the bread is the body of Christ, he is equally emphatic that Christians are one loaf, one body. Clearly, he means that the one Eucharistic loaf represents the unity among believers. Similarly, “by means of these things” - the bread and the cup - the Lord presents his people with his body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are the figure or sign of Christ, as Augustine asserts explicitly elsewhere in his writings:

The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant).

He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3).

[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).

The Eucharist is the figure of the body and blood of Jesus. Since the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, it is acceptable to call them His body and His blood. The bread resembles the body; therefore it is called the body even though it is not the reality it represents. That is perfectly normal in figurative language.

Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ. The mistake of the modern Catholic Church is to confuse the sign with the reality it represents.

Augustine rightly warns that “to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage” (On Christian Doctrine 3,9). Augustine is here referring to the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. Thus, to confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine a mark of weakness and bondage.

---

 

[dcarollo]

BTW: I think this discussion helps uncovering Augustine’s actual views on the eucharist…

Although It is easy to see why modern Protestants would view Augustine as their “poster-boy” for their own view of “figurative” or merely “symbolic”. Augustine often wrote in categories that were informed by his Platonism. In contrast, Aquinas was more informed by Aristotlean categories. I think Aquinas does a much better job, however, it helping summarize the Catholic understanding (which seems also to go back to the earliest centuries).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=360732

 

[Vico]

This (what St. Augustine wrote) is in agreement with Council of Trent. The change is trans-substantial rather than trans-accidental. Meaning, although still bread and wine in appearance, it is in essence Body and Blood of Christ, at least as long as it can be recognized as elements of bread and wine.

Modern Catholic Dictionary has for Transubstantiation: “The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood … so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain.”

 

[Lancer]

Ephesians 4:11-16
English Standard Version (ESV)

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

Pax Christi

 

[grannymh]

What needs to be remembered is that the writings of the Church Fathers and subsequent Saints are not automatically Catholic doctrine.

 

[thenobes]

Augustine also said this:

( from www.ccel.org)

St. AUGUSTIN:
lectures or tractates on the gospel according to st. John

Tractate XXVII.

Chapter VI. 60–72

excerpt

…let all this, then, avail us to this end, most beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ*** merely ***in the sacrament, as many evil men do, but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended, even if many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments in a temporal manner, who shall in the end have eternal torments.

Never does he imply that the bread and wine are not Christ’s Flesh and Blood. Indeed he is saying that the eating that the Lord requires is of His actual flesh and blood, but with the addition of the Spirit within.

In regards to the use of “figure” or sign, if you read the paragraph from Book 3 of On Christian Doctrine,

Chapter 9.—Who is in Bondage to Signs, and Who Not.

1. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error

You can see that Augustine means for us not to worship the sign, that is bread, as bread, but as representative of the reality behind, which the Church has interpreted as the substantial presence of Christ behind that appearance.

"Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. "

The appearance of bread is not holy in and of itself, but because it is the outer appearance of the substance of Christ within.

peace
steve

 

[PRmerger]

What St. Augustine proposed–that the Eucharist is the metaphysical (or metaphorical) presence of Christ–is quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

We proclaim this, too.

But we just don’t proclaim that it’s ONLY a metaphysical presence. (And neither does, BTW, St. Augustine).

 

[Nate13]

newadvent.org/fathers/0103502.htm

I would argue that a vast majority of the Early Church Fathers made it very clear that the Eucharist is not just spiritually Jesus. The idea that the Eucharist was merely taking in a spiritual Jesus was a belief of some of the Gnostic churches and was based on the idea that Jesus was only divine and his humanity was merely an allusion while he was here on Earth. This belief of the Eucharist was rebuked early and often by the Early Church and was not considered a distinction of minor concern at all.

The Eucharist is the marriage supper of the lamb. Saying we only need to spiritually become one body with Christ is like saying I only need to become spiritually “one body” with my wife. Christ wishes to be one with us in body and in spirit.

 

[Church_Militant]

but they don’t dare quote St. Augustine’s other statements.

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own. —St. Augustine of Hippo

 

[panevino]

Augustine was coverted in part by the preaching of st Ambrose
who wrote quite clearly about transubstantiation.

 

[panevino]

Augustine was coverted in part by the preaching of st Ambrose
who wrote quite clearly about transubstantiation.

Thought I’d add the following from Augustine.

Confessions(r.s pine-coffin)
Book IX
“… For she knew that at your altar we receive the holy Victim, who cancelled the decree made to our prejudice…”

Book XIII
“…through the sacrament of the Eucharist, when the Fish which was raised from the depths is held out to us and is received as food by the faithful earth…”

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The bottom line is that while many protestants like to use selective quotations of Augustine to suggest his “protestant” leanings towards a metaphorical intepretation, but when one does an honest examination of Augustine’s thought-which because of his rhetorical style can be easily manipulated as Paul’s is to this day-we can clearly see that Augustine believed in Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist and that his belief is consistent with current Catholic teaching as to how Jesus’ presence occurs, i.e. transubstantiation.

 

[TimothyH]

I like to investigate who owns these domains.

In this case, the justforcatholics.org domain is owned by Trinity Evangelical Church in the city of Luqa in the island nation of Malta. tecmalta.org/index-en.htm is their website. They are Reformed Baptist** and hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith which contains these gems…

Chapter 20: Of the Lord’s Supper

2._____ In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

6._____ That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

Chapter 26: Of the Church

3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

4._____ The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

I just thought I’d point out who the guys behind this website are for the sake of all who are debating or discussing. These guys are a tiny little church on an island in the middle of the Medditeranean Sea. Personally, I don’t think that the worlds largest Catholic website should get the slightest bit out of joint over what they say.

-Tim-**

 

[GraceSofia]

I like to investigate who owns these domains.

In this case, the justforcatholics.org domain is owned by Trinity Evangelical Church in the city of Luqa in the island nation of Malta. tecmalta.org/index-en.htm is their website. They are Reformed Baptist** and hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith** which contains these gems…

Chapter 20: Of the Lord’s Supper

2._____ In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

6._____ That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

Chapter 26: Of the Church

3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

4._____ The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

I just thought I’d point out who the guys behind this website are for the sake of all who are debating or discussing. These guys are a tiny little church on an island in the middle of the Medditeranean Sea. Personally, I don’t think that the worlds largest Catholic website should get the slightest bit out of joint over what they say.

-Tim-
Exactly. Catholics should not waste any time on these anti-Catholic sites.

I would urge anybody who is trying to walk a faithful walk to stay away from them. They are a waste of time, and you run the risk of thinking uncharitable thoughts about people.

 

[Odell]

First off, one needs to come to terms with the fact that Transubstantiation was a dogmatic definition designed to respond to a specific error – that of Berengarianism, which claimed that the Eucharist is merely a symbol and nothing more. *Berengarianism was authored by a medieval French (Western) priest named Berengar (or Berengarius) who was operating within the environment of the medieval Western / Latin theological tradition, and he was the first person in history to offer a “rationalistic”/“naturalistic” explanation of the Eucharist and to deny that any Divine or supernatural mystery is involved. *This historical fact must be appreciated. *And so, needless to say, none of the fathers who you quote above are addressing or responding to Berengarianism, since all of them lived centuries before the heresy came into being.
Now, in response to Berengarianism, Transubstantiation asserted that the bread and wine do not continue to exist as substantial realities, but are replaced by the substantial reality of the Person of Jesus Christ. *This definition employed the language and intellectual preoccupation of Aristotelian philosophy, which distinguished between substantial reality and formal reality. *And, for Aristotle, formal reality did not define true reality. *Rather, true reality is defined by substance – the very essence of a thing, which is not limited to its formal, physical nature. *For example, it is a biological fact that the physical body that you had when you were 5 years old is not the same formal body that you have today. *Rather, every cell that composed your 5-year-old body has died by now and is replaced by new cells. *So, from a formal perspective, the person who existed at age 5 no longer exists today. *For, the physical body that you had at 5 is no longer the same formal reality that you have today. *Ah! *But, from a substantial (and metaphysical) perspective, the organism known as YOU today is exactly the same organism that existed when you were 5. *Your substance did not change. *And it is this mystery – the mystery of substance that Transubstantiation addresses. *It teaches that the bread and wine remain as formal realities, but that the TRUE reality of the Eucharist – that is, the reality of its SUBSTANCE has indeed changed, by Divine command.
However, this was a medieval, Latin (Western) Scholastic definition, which addressed a medieval Latin challenge (i.e., Berengarianism), and focused on a medieval Latin preoccupation – that is, whether or not the Eucharist was merely a naturalistic symbol or a true metaphysical miracle. *In the pre-medieval Church (especially the Eastern Church), this was never an issue; and so, it is no big surprise that the early fathers never addressed this dimension of the Mystery. *And, with this historical context appreciated, if you now go back and read the quote from the Augustine above – keeping in mind that they are NOT addressing Berengarianism, and are using the intellectual language of Plato, and not that of Aristotle, it becomes abundantly clear that they are not denying Transubstantiation.

You ought to know What you have received, What you are going to receive, and What you ought to receive daily. *The Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the Word of God, is the Body of Christ. *The Chalice, or rather What is in the Chalice, having been sanctified by the Word of God is the Blood of Christ *(Sermon 227, 21)
Notice that Augustine distinguishes between what is perceived (what his flock “sees”) and what It truly is. *It is not the common elements (the physical forms) that they received, but the real substance that they are made into when they are sanctified by the Word of God. *And he also writes…
He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the Blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. *If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon What you eat, What you drink, to What you answer “Amen”. *(Second Discourse on Psalm 32, Ch. 4)
Here, again, Augustine speaks of what the medieval Scholastics (using Aristotelian language) call “the substance”. *And he also writes…
The fact that our fathers of old (i.e., the Israelites) offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: That those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. *A visible Sacrifice, therefore is the Sacrament (the Eucharist), that is to say, the sacred sign of an invisible Sacrifice. …Christ is both Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. *He willed that the Sacramental sign of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church (the Eucharist), Who, since the Church is His Body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him. *(The City of God, 10:5, 10:20)
Here, in speaking about the “visible” and the “invisible”, Augustine, again, touches on the distinction between that which is physical form and underlying substance. *It is Christ Himself, and Christ alone, that is truly offered in Sacrifice

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/MoreThanJustSymbol.aspx

 

[TimothyH]

Exactly. Catholics should not waste any time on these anti-Catholic sites.

I would urge anybody who is trying to walk a faithful walk to stay away from them. They are a waste of time, and you run the risk of thinking uncharitable thoughts about people.

I think it is important to know that they are out there and to be able to refute what they say and defend the basics of our faith, but to do so remembering that they are a tiny little group of people. Anyone can get a website and a facebook page, drum up a few dozen followers and make a lot of noise. Consider the words of St. Josemaria Escriva.

***Don’t waste your time and your energy — which belong to God — throwing stones at the dogs that bark at you on your way. Ignore them. **

• St. Josemaria Escriva, The Way, 14*

-Tim-