I don’t see how the word “certain” shows that St. Augustine did not believe in the Real Presence.
It seems to me that the word “certain” in this context means “special,” in which case it actually affirms the Real Presence since it would certainly be unique for Jesus to hold his own body in his hands.
Hello frindro,…how are things in the east?
I am not suggesting that “the word ‘certain’ shows that St. Augustine did not believe in the Real Presence.” I am suggesting (maybe even declaring) that the use of “certain” means that one can’t claim that the passage establishes that Augustine believed in a real bodily presence. There are many special things that God does that do not involve a real bodily presence…and so understanding “certain” as “special” does not establish a RP. The understanding that Augustine did not advocate a real bodily presence is derived from the body of his work. It is not an unusual conclusion of biographers of Augustine.
F. van der Meer, in his renowned study
Augustine the Bishop, wrote:
It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.
In
Papal Sin G. Wills (another biographer of Augustine) approvingly cites van der Meer on that point and continues by pointing out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.
Edward Kilmartin S.J. is a scholar who views the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasts this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”
I have discussed Augustine’s position on the Eucharist at length in these forums (in a number of threads) and would be prepared to share my thoughts again if you wanted to start a thread…or you could simply review those threads and see if you have anything to add. What seems to be lost on most Catholic posters is that van der Meer, Wills and Kilmartin will have actually read and studied Sermons 227 and 272, Expositions on the Psalms 98/99 and 33/34 and yet, they still have concluded that Augustine was not an advocate of a somatic real presence. The Catholics posters should ask themselves how these scholars (who have studied Augustine) could have missed what seems so obvious to the Catholic poster. Could it be that the Catholic poster has let his bias cloud his understanding?
Since Third Day brought it up, I will briefly address Expositions on the Psalms 98/99, but then I would suggest that we leave Augustine to a new thread. Third Day’s quote was:
*And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us
to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in
worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. *
Third Day then stated: “Augustine says we should worship the Eucharist yet you claim He believed it was symbolic.”
Please note that Augustine doesn’t mention the Eucharist in the passage. Someone predisposed to it might assume that Augustine must be talking of the Eucharist b/c he mentions eating Christ’s flesh, but that is merely projecting one’s own understanding onto Augustine. Augustine gave us his understanding of what eating the flesh of Jesus meant (in On Christian Doctrine bk 3) :
*…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.” 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. *
Here, in considering the “gnawing” passage Augustine doesn’t say the eating is done through the Eucharist. Instead, Augustine makes it clear that eating the flesh of the Son of Man is achieved by sharing in the sufferings of our Lord, and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Insert Augustine’s actual understanding of flesh eating into the Psalms 98/99 passage and we have:
And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave (in a figure of speech) that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one shares in the sufferings of our Lord, and retains a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.
Understand eating Christ’s flesh as Augustine would have understood that requirement and that passage doesn’t suggest a real bodily presence.
I hope the weather out West (I assume you are not in the Arctic) is nice as well.