James R. White Misrepresents Again

[Guardian]

Just today on his blog, found here, Mr. White made the argument that Augustine did not believe in the real presence and then quotes Augustine. Here is Mr. White’s argument:

 You see, Matthew, to have seriously engaged the idea of transubstantiation in differentiation from real presence you would have to have considered and given place to Augustine's own consistent teaching that the physical body of Jesus will remain in heaven until He returns so that the Church is deprived of the physical presence of Christ. How could he say this if, in fact, he believed what you believe regarding transubstantiation? To consistently read Augustine one must take those passages where he presents the reailty of Christ's spiritual presence with His people (especially in reference to the Eucharistic celebration) and instead of suppressing the rest of his views in light of the anachronistic reading of later traditions allow him to speak for himself in his own context. And when you do so, you see the consistency in what he said above about the bodily presence of Christ and what he says here about John 6:

Who is the bread of of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.
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. (Augustine, John: Tractate 25:12).

Now, anyone that has read the Early Church Fathers notices instant misrepresentation. Mr. White cut and pasted Augustine completely out of context. In fact, Mr. White took sentences from Augustine’s “Sermon 62 on the New Testament, 5” and then linked it up to a few sentences from Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of “John: Tractate 25:12.” I don’t know whether to call this extremely poor scholarship or outright hijacking of the Early Fathers.

Here is what Augustine said, in context in both articles (only shortened due to post limit, please go read the full version):

But whence arose an occasion, so to say, to the Lord, to speak of this supper? One of them that sat at meat with Him (for He was at a feast, whither He had been invited), had said, “Blessed are they who eat bread in the kingdom of God.” He sighed as though after distant things, and the Bread Himself was sitting down before him. Who is the Bread of the kingdom of God, but He who saith, "I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven "? Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense; nor have we said, “Let them believe who have seen with their eyes, and handled with their hands the Lord Himself after His resurrection, if what is said be true; we do not touch Him, why should we believe?”…" - Augustine: Sermon 62, 5

“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 perisheth, but for that which endureth 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 ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” For that reason, He willeth not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that worketh by love. Nor did He say, This is your work; but, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent;” so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord… - Augustine: John, Tractate 25:12

Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

[PhilVaz]

Thanks. Also this commentary from JND KELLY, Early Christian Doctrines (page 446-447, 454-455)

"There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM. Thus, preaching on ‘the sacrament of the Lord’s table’ to newly baptized persons, he remarked [Serm 227],

‘That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BODY. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BLOOD. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey HIS BODY AND BLOOD, which He shed for us.’

"‘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.” (pages 446-447)

"Augustine’s conception of the eucharistic sacrifice is closely linked with his ideas on sacrifice in general. ‘A true sacrifice,’ he writes [De civ dei 10:6], ‘is whatever work is accomplished with the object of establishing our holy union with God.’ Essentially it is an interior transaction of the will, and what is conventionally termed the sacrifice is the outward sign of this: ‘the visible sacrifice is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred symbol (sacrum signum), of the invisible sacrifice.’ [De civ dei 10:5]

"The supreme and uniquely pure sacrifice, of course, is the offering of Himself which the Redeemer made on Calvary [Enarr in Ps 149:6]. This is the sacrifice which all the sacrifices of the Jewish Law foreshadowed; it is the memorial of it that Christians celebrate today in the eucharist [C. Faust 6:5; 20:18].

‘This sacrifice,’ he remarks [De civ dei 17:20:2], ‘succeeded all those sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slaughtered in anticipation of what was to come…For instead of all those sacrifices and oblations His BODY IS OFFERED, and is DISTRIBUTED to the participants.’

"The Christian supper presupposes the death on the cross [Serm 112:1]. The self-same Christ Who was slain there is in a real sense slaughtered daily [sacramentally in an unbloody manner] by the faithful, so that the sacrifice which was offered once for all in bloody form is sacramentally RENEWED upon our altars with the OBLATION of His BODY AND BLOOD [Ep 98:9; C. Faust 20:18; 20:21]. From this it is clear that, if the eucharistic sacrifice is essentially a ‘similitude’ or ‘memorial’ of Calvary, it includes MUCH MORE than that. In the first place, it involves a REAL, though sacramental, OFFERING of Christ’s BODY AND BLOOD; He is Himself the priest, but also the OBLATION [De civ dei 10:20]. In the second place, however, along with this oblation of the Head, it involves the offering of His members, since the fruit of the sacrifice is, precisely, their union in His mystical body. As Augustine puts it [De civ dei 10:6],

‘The whole redeemed community, that is, the congregation and society of saints, is the universal sacrifice offered to God through the great high-priest, Who offered Himself in His passion for us, so that we might be the body of so great a Head…When then the Apostle exhorted us to present our bodies as a living victim [Rom 12:1]… this is the sacrifice of Christians: we who are many are one body in Christ. The Church celebrates it in the sacrament of the altar which is so familiar to the faithful, in which is shown that in what she offers she herself is offered.’

“Or again [De civ dei 19:23:5] : ‘The most splendid and excellent sacrifice consists of ourselves, His people. This is the sacrifice the mystery whereof we celebrate in our oblation.’” (pages 454-455)

Thank you. White mega-rebuttal #13229503218790321 Complete. Over and Out.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

More commentary, Schaff (History of the Christian Church)

"It is not a new sacrifice added to that of the cross, but a daily, unbloody repetition and perpetual application of that ONE ONLY sacrifice. Augustine represents it, on the one hand, as a -sacramentum memoriae-, a symbolical commemoration of the sacrificial death of Christ; to which of course there is no objection [Contr Faust Manich 1.xx.18 Latin given].

“But, on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion -verissimum sacrificium- of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (immolat) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ, from the days of the apostles through the sure succession of the bishops down to our time. But the church at the same time offers, with Christ, herself, as the body of Christ, to God. As all are one body, so also all are together the same sacrifice [De civit Dei x.20 Latin given].” (Schaff, vol 3, page 507)

“The subject of the sacrifice is the body of Jesus Christ, which is as TRULY PRESENT on the altar of the church, as it once was on the altar of the cross, and which now offers itself to God through his priest. Hence the frequent language of the liturgies: “Thou art he who offerest, and who art offered, O Christ, our God.” Augustine, however, connects with this, as we have already said, the true and important moral idea of the self-sacrifice of the whole redeemed church to God. The prayers of the liturgies do the same.” (page 508)

"Even St. Augustine, with Tertullian, teaches plainly, as an OLD tradition, that the eucharistic sacrifice, the intercessions or -suffragia- and alms, of the living are of benefit to the departed believers, so that the Lord deals more mercifully with them than their sins deserve [Serm 172:2 Latin given]. His noble mother, Monica, when dying, told him he might bury her body where he pleased, and should give himself no concern for it, only she begged of him that he would remember her SOUL at the altar of the Lord [Confess 1:9:27 Latin given]. (page 510)

Thank you. One more for good measure. Darwell Stone next.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Darwell Stone, from A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (volume 1)

There is like terminology in the West. A canon of the Council of Arles, held in 314 A.D., like the Council of Nicaea eleven years later in the East, incidentally contains the word ‘OFFER’ to describe the work of the presbyters which the deacons might not perform [Canon 15]. St. Optatus of Milevis uses the words ‘SACRIFICE’ and ‘OFFER’ in regard to the Eucharist [2:12].

St. Ambrose says that it is part of the work of the Christian ministry to ‘OFFER SACRIFICE for the people’; that Christ ‘is Himself on earth when the body of Christ is OFFERED’; and that the word of Christ ‘consecrates the SACRIFICE which is OFFERED’ [In Ps 38 Enar 25].

St. Augustine refers to the Eucharist as ‘the SACRIFICE of our redemption,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Mediator,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of peace,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of love,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Church’ [Conf 9:32; Enchir 110; In Ps 21 Enar 2:28; In Ps 33 Enar 1:5; De civ Dei 10:20].

St. Leo speaks of ‘the OFFERING of the SACRIFICE’ as an act of Christian worship [Serm 26:1; 91:3]. (Stone, volume 1, page 113)

In the West this connection of the Eucharistic sacrifice with the passion and death of Christ is found in St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. The saying of St. Ambrose that ‘Christ’ ‘is offered as Man, as taking on Himself suffering (recipiens passionem)’ [De off 1:248], probably refers rather to the taking of a nature capable of suffering in the Incarnation than to the passion and death in particular; but the same writer elsewhere explicitly states that in the Eucharist ‘we proclaim the death of the Lord’ [De fide 4:124]. St. Augustine, after referring to Communion, says that our Lord –

“made Himself low that man might eat the bread of angels, and ‘taking the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, being made obedient even unto death, yea the death of the cross,’ [Phil 2:7,8] that now from the cross the FLESH AND BLOOD of the Lord might be commended to us as a NEW SACRIFICE.” [In Ps 33 Enar 1:6] (Stone, volume 1, page 115-116)

St. Augustine closely connects the Eucharistic ALTAR on EARTH with the ALTAR of our LORD’S OFFERING in HEAVEN; regards our Lord’s heavenly work as the fulfillment of the type in the sacrifice which the Jewish high priest offered in the holy of holies; and speaks of the approach to the earthly altar as symbolic both of the present access of Christians to our Lord in heaven and of their future entrance therein.

[see In Ps 25 Enar 2:10 and In Ps 64 Enar 6]

“This ALTAR, which is NOW set in the Church on EARTH for celebrating the symbols of the divine mysteries, exposed to earthly eyes, many even of the wicked can approach…But that altar whither the forerunner Jesus has entered on our behalf, whither the Head of the Church has gone before, while the rest of the members are to follow, none of those can approach of whom, as I have already related, the Apostle said, ‘those who do such things shall not possess the kingdom of God’ [Gal 5:21]. For the Priest alone, yet clearly there the whole Priest, will stand, that is with the body added of which He is the Head, which has already ascended into heaven.” [Serm 351:7] (Stone, volume 1, page 120-121)

St. Augustine connects COMMUNION with God with his definition of SACRIFICE, and makes the RECEPTION of Communion part of the Christian SACRIFICIAL ACTION…

Elsewhere St. Augustine, after explaining that the one true sacrifice which Christ offered was foreshadowed in different ways among heathen and Jews, adds –

“Wherefore now Christians celebrate the memorial of the SAME accomplished sacrifice by the MOST HOLY OFFERING AND RECEPTION OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.” [C. Faust 20:18]

“Thus is He priest, Himself OFFERING, Himself also that which is OFFERED. Of this thing He willed the SACRIFICE of the Church to be the DAILY Sacrament; and the Church, since she is the body of the Head Himself, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” [De civ Dei 10:20] (Stone, volume 1, page 123-124)

Thank you. St. Augustine’s teaching is now complete.

Phil P

 

[teajay]

Guardian if it turns out that you are correct, and that Mr White has in fact ‘pasted’ one half of a quote onto another, and then merely cited one source, giving the impression that the quoted text forms a single continuous piece, then that would constitute an extraordinary academic ‘sin’ and require a full apology and correction. I suspect, though, that if they do not form a continuous text, it is likely he used an incorrect secondary source and failed to quote it - less of a ‘sin’ but still inappropriate (particularly when he is condemning others for their apparent sloppiness).

 

[bones_IV]

I have no use for Mr. White. He just can’t get over the fact that his sister converted to Catholicism. To me, he’s denying and ignoring the facts. He will meet the judgement of our Lord come judgement day. From where I sit, he refuses to acknowledge that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. He’s an embarrassment to Christianity.

 

[Mickey]

He’s an embarrassment to Christianity.

Insults are unnecessary. If you don’t agree with him, pray for him–but don’t insult him.

 

[Guardian]

Guardian if it turns out that you are correct,…

Check my sources and see that I am indeed correct. Mr. White has some explaining to do.

 

[josephlilac]

Yes you are correct, but like I had posted in the other related thread, I wouldn’t expect an admittance of an error comitted by White&Co., there is a double-standard that guides accountability.

 

[John_Henry]

Augustine’s own consistent teaching that the physical body of Jesus will remain in heaven until He returns so that the Church is deprived of the physical presence of Christ. How could he say this if, in fact, he believed what you believe regarding transubstantiation?

I’ve seen this in several places recently. The Church is deprived of Jesus’ physical presence on earth. OK. Someone needs to invite the dude to a Mass, where he can note for himself that the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ are made present sacramentally, not physically.

 

[bones_IV]

Insults are unnecessary. If you don’t agree with him, pray for him–but don’t insult him.

I’ve found other Protestant minister’s to be much more respectful and tolerant than him. Thank you.

 

[Mickey]

I’ve found other Protestant minister’s to be much more respectful and tolerant than him. Thank you.

There is no doubt about that.

 

[Pilgrim2Grace]

Just today on his blog, found here, Mr. White made the argument that Augustine did not believe in the real presence and then quotes Augustine. Here is Mr. White’s argument:

Now, anyone that has read the Early Church Fathers notices instant misrepresentation. Mr. White cut and pasted Augustine completely out of context. In fact, Mr. White took sentences from Augustine’s “Sermon 62 on the New Testament, 5” and then linked it up to a few sentences from Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of “John: Tractate 25:12.” I don’t know whether to call this extremely poor scholarship or outright hijacking of the Early Fathers.

Here is what Augustine said, in context in both articles (only shortened due to post limit, please go read the full version):

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Have Dr. White’s citations from Augustine misrepresent *how *or *what *Augustine believed about the real presence?

 

[josephlilac]

Have Dr. White’s citations from Augustine misrepresent how or what Augustine believed about the real presence?

Yes.

1. Scroll this thread and read the other quotes that PhilVaz has posted.
2. Regardless of the fact that White&Co. tirelessly use accusations and terminology relating to anachronism, they have yet to prove that it doesn’t actually apply to them. At the time of the Reformation, the Liturgy had been well established and the text of the Liturgy is inarguably related to sacrifice. I find White&Co’s assumptions about Augustine’s beliefs very suspect, even if White&Co portay themselves as some sort of Church Father Whisperer.

 

[josephlilac]

Another thing in all fairness.

By the mere title “Dr.,” White is prone to misrepresentation. His “Doctorate” degree is not from an accredited school, and he knows this. To not add a disclaimer on his website, books, articles, debates, and so-forth might, and I repeat MIGHT, be equivalent to lying via mental reservation. (This is probably controversial for some, and I am probably wrong, but it is my opinion and I gave my reasons which are and can be debated.)

 

[Guardian]

Have Dr. White’s citations from Augustine misrepresent *how *or *what *Augustine believed about the real presence?

Yes.

Hypothetically, let’s assume Mr. White’s citations were actually one flowing stand-alone quote from Augustine, as Mr. White falsely presented. Even if that were true, Mr. White put his own spin on the quotation to implicitly say, “See!! Augustine didn’t believe in the Real Presence.” Of course, if you read all of Augustine’s writings, that interpretation of St. Augustine is false. It is noted however that is a matter of interpretation, even though the evidence points strongly to Augustine believing in the Real Presence.

The crutch of the misrepresentation by Mr. White is trying to build a stronger argument by cutting and pasting quotations together from various documents to form one consistent thought of Augustine on the specific topic of communion. Yet, as we see in context, Augustine is presenting multiple theological levels of idealogy about Christ and the Faith in general, not a refutation specifically on the Real Presence of the Eucharist, nor necessarily even discussing the act of communion altogether.

What is certain is the evidence Mr. White presented was carefully picked and manipulated to lead one to a false conclusion of Augustine’s belief of the Real Presence. ** That is simply misrepresentation and erroneous.**

 

[Guardian]

Mr. White took notice and changed his blog and fixed the mistake.

Should we give him the benefit of the doubt that he simply forgot to add in the quotation?

From his blog…

Who is the bread of of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense. UPDATE>>(Augustine, Sermon 62:5).
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. (Augustine, John: Tractate 25:12).

The fact is, by simply cutting those sentences out and not explaining the context and surrounding material to which they belong to, he is still manipulating the data.

 

[josephlilac]

Yes.

Hypothetically, let’s assume Mr. White’s citations were actually one flowing stand-alone quote from Augustine, as Mr. White falsely presented. Even if that were true, Mr. White put his own spin on the quotation to implicitly say, “See!! Augustine didn’t believe in the Real Presence.” Of course, if you read all of Augustine’s writings, that interpretation of St. Augustine is false. It is noted however that is a matter of interpretation, even though the evidence points strongly to Augustine believing in the Real Presence.

The crutch of the misrepresentation by Mr. White is trying to build a stronger argument by cutting and pasting quotations together from various documents to form one consistent thought of Augustine on the specific topic of communion. Yet, as we see in context, Augustine is presenting multiple theological levels of idealogy about Christ and the Faith in general, not a refutation specifically on the Real Presence of the Eucharist, nor necessarily even discussing the act of communion altogether.

What is certain is the evidence Mr. White presented was carefully picked and manipulated to lead one to a false conclusion of Augustine’s belief of the Real Presence. That is simply misrepresentation and erroneous.

Try to be accurate Guardian. White didn’t say that Augustine doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, just that Augustine didn’t believe in Transubstantiation. He would probably argue (being well equiped with sophistry and rhetoric supplemented with a keen ability to supply only isolated statements) that Augustine only believes in a spiritual presence.

All other things withstanding.

 

[josephlilac]

I am still waiting for White&Co.'s apology for their utter (White&Co’s favorite word) shoddiness.

 

[Guardian]

Try to be accurate Guardian. White didn’t say that Augustine doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, just that Augustine didn’t believe in Transubstantiation. He would probably argue (being well equiped with sophistry and rhetoric supplemented with a keen ability to supply only isolated statements) that Augustine only believes in a spiritual presence.

All other things withstanding.

Which is why I said, “implicitly.”

Mr. White has said time and time again in his debates, books, blogs etc. that the Early Church did not believe in the real presence. This is obviously the main point Mr. White is getting at, whichever way he can.