JPrejean << So why should PhilVaz waste his time with someone who hasn’t been able to answer his arguments in writing, whose failure to answer his point shows a basic inability to grasp even rudimentary Catholic theology, and who has already used the oral format in an obfuscatory manner? >>
Thanks. I can agree with White on this one point: St. Augustine did not believe in the
full,
explicit,
later defined doctrine of
transubstantiation that arose out of the 9th and 11th and 12th century controversies on the Eucharist (all documented in Darwell Stone’s volumes). But I can also agree that St. Ignatius of Antioch in the second century did not believe in the
full,
explicit,
later defined doctrine of the Holy Trinity and divine person of Jesus Christ that arose out of the 4th and 5th century controversies on the nature of God. Same idea.
Why is it
so hard for White to admit
“I do not agree with St. Augustine on the Eucharist.” I don’t get that. As I mentioned in the other theads, White is a
baptist for crying out loud. He does
not agree with St. Augustine.
Just let us have St. Augustine, call it quits, and stop quoting him.
Your relevant passages on Augustine for bodily presence in Eucharist are what you cited. The two most important are:
“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)
“…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)
Also the commentary from reputable Church historians and patristic scholars I have cited is important:
"‘You know,’ he said in another sermon [Serm 9:14], ‘what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, WHOM you are EATING and WHOM you are DRINKING.’ Commenting on the Psalmist’s bidding that we should adore the footstool of His feet, he pointed out [Enarr in Ps 98:9] that this must be the earth. But since to adore the earth would be blasphemous, he concluded that the word must mysteriously signify the FLESH which Christ took from the earth and which He gave to us to EAT. Thus it was the EUCHARISTIC BODY WHICH DEMANDED ADORATION.
"Again, he explained [Enarr in Ps 33:1:10] the sentence, ‘He was carried in his hands’ (LXX of 1 Sam 21:13), which in the original describes David’s attempt to allay Achish’s suspicions, as referring to the sacrament:
‘CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE OFFERED HIS VERY BODY AND SAID “THIS IS MY BODY”’.
“One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements WITH THE SACRED BODY AND BLOOD. There can be NO DOUBT that he shared the REALISM held by almost ALL his contemporaries and predecessors.” (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 446-447)
Now Kelly goes on to suggest St. Augustine was not as explicit as others on the nature of the “real presence” and “change” as were St. Ambrose in the west, and several eastern Fathers who come closest to the explicit doctrine of transubstantiation. But please let’s not ignore everything else St. Augustine believed.
Phil P
