Did Augustine teach wrongly on the Eucharist?

[brb2]

Paraphrasing Christ in the Gospel account …‘Unless he shall have eaten My flesh he shall not have eternal life’, Augustine says this of Christ’s words in one of his Sermons.

Some understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His body to give them … But, he instructed them and said : “It is the spirit that gives life; but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. And even if it is necessary that this be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly.

Isn’t this the general Protestant understanding … not the Catholic concept ?

 

[TristanCross]

Augustine had the Catholic view:

“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)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

 

[TristanCross]

Also:

St. Augustine, Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
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 the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!' and you answer: `Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your `Amen' may be the truth.

 

[SyCarl]

Augustine said quite a bit about the Eucharist.

And in the history of the New Testament by that so great and so wonderful forbearance of our Lord; in that He bore so long with him as if good, when He was not ignorant of his thoughts; in that He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood

Exposition on the Psalms. Psalm 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.III_1.html

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

“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 perishes, but for that which endures 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 you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12
newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.

Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,” although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness 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, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.

Letters, Number 98, Paragraph 9
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

 

[brb2]

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 the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!' and you answer: `Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your `Amen' may be the truth.

Here too Augustine seems to teach we receive only the Spiritual aspects of Christ. He says … “What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit”.

Is it not true that our transubstantiation explanation came around 1050 AD ?

 

[TristanCross]

Augustine is explaining that we see bread and wine, while it is actually (and mysteriously) Christ’s body and blood.

 

[brb2]

Augustine is explaining that we see bread and wine, while it is actually (and mysteriously) Christ’s body and blood.

Actually, Augustine said here that the Church is the mystical body/blood of Christ. Again, I think for him the Eucharist was PRIMARILY a spiritual concept. I don’t think he ever taught the transubstantiation concept the Church shares today.

I would love to be shown otherwise. Augustine had so many original inspirations.

 

[Ignatius]

Paraphrasing Christ in the Gospel account …‘Unless he shall have eaten My flesh he shall not have eternal life’, Augustine says this of Christ’s words in one of his Sermons.

Some understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His body to give them … But, he instructed them and said : “It is the spirit that gives life; but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. And even if it is necessary that this be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly.

Isn’t this the general Protestant understanding … not the Catholic concept ?

Your paraphrase is, but not what St. Augustine actually says.is:
“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)

“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)

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Paraphrasing Christ in the Gospel account …‘Unless he shall have eaten My flesh he shall not have eternal life’, Augustine says this of Christ’s words in one of his Sermons.

Some understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His body to give them … But, he instructed them and said : “It is the spirit that gives life; but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. And even if it is necessary that this be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly.

Isn’t this the general Protestant understanding … not the Catholic concept ?

The unspiritual man, who understands carnally, whose understanding is not enlightened by faith, looks upon the Eucharist and sees only the visible appearance of bread and wine and profits nothing. On the other hand, the spiritual man, who understands spiritually, whose understanding is enlightened by faith, looks upon the Eucharist and sees with the eyes of faith what is invisible to the senses, the real, substantial, life-giving presence of Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

 

[diggerdomer]

Is it not true that our transubstantiation explanation came around 1050 AD ?

No.

And of course Augustine didn’t teach “transubstantiation” as the word was not invented yet.

 

[brb2]

No.

And of course Augustine didn’t teach “transubstantiation” as the word was not invented yet.

Lucky for us, we don’t have to fully understand tthe scientific/mystical process in order for the Eucharist to bring grace to one who accepts the Sacrament in faith.

The Eucharist was efficacious to 11 of the first 12 who received it … those true disciples who accepted it in faith, understanding only that they were getting a special blessing from Christ and were honoring him by accepting his gift to them.

 

[erikd]

Here too Augustine seems to teach we receive only the Spiritual aspects of Christ. He says … “What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit”.

Is it not true that our transubstantiation explanation came around 1050 AD ?

The word “transubstantiation” is credited to Hildebert of Tours around 1079. The concept, however, was present much earlier than that:

*“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]). *
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

There are many more testimonials, some of which are displayed at the link above.

As far as St. Augustine, his writings can be a bit confusing. Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding St. Augustine, as well as other early Church Fathers’ understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism. On the other hand, complete clearness on the subject had been attained by writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West.
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

 

[CMatt25]

Your paraphrase is, but not what St. Augustine actually says.is:
“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)

“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)

Seems pretty clear to me.

I am bumping this very old thread because I have been looking into the OP’s topic and in my search came across this thread. So instead of starting a new one I hope this is ok.

It doesn’t seem as clear to me now that I have looked deeper into Augustine’s words. Or at least I can understand better the Protestant view on Augustine.

Christian Doctrine III 16: 24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable **memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. **

Why does this not mean the Eucharist is figurative where we retain a memory of the Crucifixion?

Sermon 272, “what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen”

“One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are.”

Why are these words not saying it is the people who are the body and the bread, and when one says Amen at the altar it is to affirm that one is a member of the body?

Tractate 27, “He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before; certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.”

Why does this not mean Christ’s body is in heaven and grace is not achieved by literally eating His literal flesh?

 

[brb3]

Christian Doctrine III 16: 24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable **memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. **

Why does this not mean the Eucharist is figurative where we retain a memory of the Crucifixion?

It does seem this is what Augustine believes, … and what Protestants use to support their belief.

Did Augustine later change his mind on this matter, and come to believe Christ meant the Lord’s Supper command to the 12 to be taken Literally ? I’d guess he did … but, I haven’t seen clear proof thereof.

 

[brb3]

Tractate 27, “He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before; certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.”

Why does this not mean Christ’s body is in heaven and grace is not achieved by literally eating His literal flesh?

Well Paul is very clear on his Post-Redemption status as being IN CHRIST. He believe Christ lived within him via H.S. John also taught that Christ resides in the Adoption … [John 14:20]. But, this implys to me that Christ is talking of his Spirit within us.

Paul had heard the voice of Christ speaking to him prior to his Conversion. And, Christ taught the Apostles that if he [physically] left them, he would send the Counselor to abide in them [John 14:16]. We take this as meaning the H.S. would dwell within the Adoption of Christ.

So, we know the 3rd Person of the Trinity clearly indwells the Adoption. We know Christ is ultimate HEAD of the Church, yet he set Peter and subsequent Popes in charge of the Flock.

Does Christ rule from Heaven … soley via 3rd Person of Trinity & via his Popes ? Or, does Christ continue his literal presence to us via the Eucharist ?

I’m not convinced Augustine believed/taught the Literal presence of Christ … from the quotes I’ve seen.

Nevertheless, we know we are Redeemed by the Literal Blood and Body of Christ via Faith, Baptism, and Confirmation. So, if we can believe Christ has literally saved us via our act of faith, repentance, water baptism, and laying on of hands … how can we not also say with confidence that Christ is also LITERALLY in the Eucharist, that has been blessed by God’s annointed priests ?

I hope someone can clearly show from additional writings … what St. Augustine ultimately believed … in his later years.

Also, St. Augustine said …“that he would not believe, except for the Church teaching” on various matters.

 

[brb3]

Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism. On the other hand, complete clearness on the subject had been attained by writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West.
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

Ambrose was Augustine’s mentor, who he had full confidence in. So, why would Augustine waver on this matter if he knew Ambrose believed/taught him the actual Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ?

 

[Nita]

I am bumping this very old thread because I have been looking into the OP’s topic and in my search came across this thread. So instead of starting a new one I hope this is ok.

It doesn’t seem as clear to me now that I have looked deeper into Augustine’s words. Or at least I can understand better the Protestant view on Augustine.

Christian Doctrine III 16: 24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable **memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Why does this not mean the Eucharist is figurative where we retain a memory of the Crucifixion?

**

Jesus’ words were not meant to be taken in the immediate literal carnal sense. In other words, He was not telling them they should cut off pieces of His body and eat it for physical food. This would be the “crime” and “vice” Augustine refers to. It has to be understood in a sense different from ordinary cannibalism.

It’s VERY important to go back and look at the whole context of John 6. The people are interested in being physically fed. They had just experienced being miraculously fed (feeding of the 5000), and now they want another sign. They say to Jesus: “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”(John 6:30-31) (Recall that the OT bread continued to miraculously feed the Israelites for 40 years.)
Jesus tells them, and keeps on telling them, that He’ll provide food that will give them “eternal life”. But they can’t seem to get past understanding “food” in the ordinary way – something to feed the flesh/physical life. You think they’d recognize that such a food would have to be something “other” - go beyond just physical matter. Later Jesus tells the apostles His words are not about feeding our flesh – the physical condition of our bodies is of no value in attaining eternal life. (John 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.) It’s life in our soul that is necessary for eternal life. This is the nourishment - His life and His spirit, present in His body and blood - that must be received.

Just as He kept repeating it was “eternal life” He was talking about, so He kept insisting they must “eat His body” and “drink His blood” to have it. He meant all of it literally – just not temporally literal. It was not eternal life here on earth He was talking about and it was not His body and blood in its temporal/earthly limited state that He was talking about.

The apostles accepted His words (vs 68-69), even tho they probably didn’t understand. I’m always surprised that they never asked Him “how are we to eat Your body”? Of course, at the Last Supper they found out “how” – but I’ll bet they puzzled over Our Lord’s words many times before that night. I can just imagine the light bulbs going off in their minds and hearts when He took the bread and said “This is My Body. Take and eat.”

 

[brb3]

I am bumping this very old thread because I have been looking into the OP’s topic and in my search came across this thread. So instead of starting a new one I hope this is ok.

It doesn’t seem as clear to me now that I have looked deeper into Augustine’s words. Or at least I can understand better the Protestant view on Augustine.

So glad you bumped it today …

Its taken 1.5 yrs to get this solved for me. There is another thread currently posted on the topic of the Eucharist … that gives the complete explanation of the Literal meaning of the Blood & Body. Its by a Jewish Catholic.

View this 70 Minute Video www.theholyeucharist.com/ … just finished seeing it myself.

After watching this video … doesn’t matter to me if Augustine was or wasn’t sure. This video will make a believer of you on the matter …

 

[Mintaka]

One of the problems with this thread is that the English words don’t mean what the Latin words say, or what the underlying Hebrew meaning is.

“Memory” is memoria, which isn’t just remembering something. It’s having something in mind and heart present before you, a fact on the front burner. The Greek is “anamnesis”, and I forget what the Hebrew is. But the general idea is of something like a devout modern Jew not just knowing that the Exodus and Passover happened, but having him consider that in very fact, Exodus and Passover happened to him personally and freed him and all his family ever. The Passover seder allows the first Passover to happen to him. It is a re-presentation every year.

So basically, the “memory” of the Cross and the Last Supper that we receive from receiving the Eucharist? Is having it happen to us. It’s a fact that happens to us every time we receive, and which we are supposed to keep in mind constantly.

The other consideration is that, useful as they are, the old public domain Anglican translations of Augustine that are being quoted were actively resisting the Catholic interpretation of passages by the way they translated them; and there are a lot of things they decided not to translate because they didn’t like what they said. (Anglicans back then were all about the consubstantiation and other theories about the Eucharist.) You’ll see the same kinds of tailored translations of passages about the Pope’s authority and other hot button issues.

Serious study of Augustine’s theology means learning Latin and studying connotations of all sorts of Church terms, as well as a lot of the other Fathers. In a pinch, you could read a lot of different translations and a lot of the footnotes. But that’s only going to give you a patchy understanding.