Protestants: If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, explain this!

[judechild]

Gentlemen:

Please let me ask you:

1. When Moses commanded put the blood on the door post, was this supposed to symbolize anything in the NT?

St. Thomas Aquinas saw this fulfilled when we put the Precious Blood to our body’s doorposts; our lips.

 

[DLClark]

there no saving benfit in holy communion. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, Eph 2:8-9.

 

[Tomster]

there no saving benfit in holy communion. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, Eph 2:8-9.

Wrong again, DL. A closer look into the Epistle of St. James should be enough for you to see the light.

But if that, ALONE, is not enough for you, check out Revelation 14:12-13. :tiphat:

 

[Arandur]

there no saving benfit in holy communion. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, Eph 2:8-9.

Holy Communion, the Eucharist, is Christ. Therefore, as Jesus himself says clearly in John 6, receiving him in Communion is absolutely the source of salvation, for it is receiving Jesus. Yes, faith saves, but you are lacking dangerously in faith if you don’t believe in Christ, which is the Eucharist. The two passages are complementary. You should know better than to take a verse or two out of context to promote your personal interpretation.

 

[IronHammer]

there no saving benfit in holy communion. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, Eph 2:8-9.

That’s an incredibly shallow statement. You make it all seem so tidy and simple. In reality, it is a deep, complex and soul stirring reality that takes years and a great deal of humility to fathom.

 

[Tomster]

That’s an incredibly shallow statement. You make it all seem so tidy and simple. In reality, it is a deep, complex and soul stirring reality that takes years and a great deal of humility to fathom.

Agreed, and especially since “faith alone” is not taught but actually condemned in the Bible. Something about faith without works is DEAD.

Some people . . . go figure.

 

[Radical]

He (God) Inspired the NT, yes, as a support to the Church. The NT directs its readers to the Church.

The NT directs its readers to Christ. There is one mediator, namely Christ between us and God….seems that you want to add a mediator, namely your church, between us and Christ.

Please define in what way you mean “w/o error.”

reflecting actual apostolic teaching w/o non-apostolic additions

Christ referenced the OT in support of his claims, as you note. The Scriptures are a support of the Church.

Yes, God himself thought it proper to reference scripture in support of his claims…the apostles taught by repeating what they had heard Christ say and by telling what they had seen Christ do. It was rare for them to introduce any novelty.

Maybe I can explain better. You are hung up on “flesh and blood” as requiring a cannibalistic consumption of actual human flesh and blood.

Actually I am hung up on the use of words such as “literal”. Like Augustine, I believe that to literally eat Jesus’s flesh would result in a cannibalistic act….your manner of using “literal” causes the word to take on a meaning that is anything but “literal”.

This he does with the bread and wine. One could say he becomes bread and wine in the Eucharist, for he does just that.

This seems to be the opposite of what the RCC teaches. Doesn’t the RCC say that the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ’s body such that the bread ceases to be present and that the body becomes present? It seems that you have it exactly backwards. At most, you should say that the substance of the body is manifested in proximity to the accidents of the bread…though I must say that the philosophy of accidents and substances seems untenable.

But it is much greater than that, because once he has manifested himself in physical form, he is not merely any mundane substance.

what physical form of his body at the Lord’s Supper? Is it bread and wine?

In this way, he IS wholly, physically present and with us,…

If he is physically present, where are the physical attributes of that presence…if you say it is the physical attributes of the bread and wine then it is bread and wine that are physically present. I suspect, as with “literal” your manner of using “physical” and “present” results in terribly distorted meanings for both of those words.

He is present as he was at the Incarnation, body, soul, and divinity, flesh transformed into food indeed and blood into drink indeed.

as he was at the incarnation? Hardly. At the incarnation his presence could be sensed. His body possessed physicality.

But you don’t believe that you actually take him into yourself when you consume the Sacrament. So what does it avail you? What does it actually DO?

the same sort of edification that prayer and meditation achieves.

 

[Radical]

No, I am not claiming what He should have done. I am repeating what the Church who is Christ’s Body (another reality only made complete by the physical consumption and incorporation of Jesus through his physical presence in the bread and wine)* knows* and teaches with the absolute authority of the Holy Spirit.

So the RCC teaches that God only pays attention to our physical nature by way of a real bodily presence at the Eucharist such that w/o it God would be ignoring our physical component? Please provide a reference for that teaching.

He said it himself in John 6. Unless we can participate in his living and dying for our sins and redeeming us, unless we can participate wholly (physically and spiritually) in his eternal life, how can we hope to have it? If we participate only spiritually, then we humans, who are defined and separate from the angels by being both physical and spiritual, split ourselves off from our physical reality and attempt to be only spiritually alive. How can you have hope of a bodily resurrection without such a thing?

My hope is based on Jesus’s promise

Surely the Lord can make special exception for the imperfect state of our fallen world and the insufficiencies of our transmission of the Sacrament, but why would He not complete His plan by providing a way for us to participate physically in His eternal life, in His redemption, and not just spiritually?

He does provide a way for us to participate physically in his eternal life…it is called the resurrection.

Why then would both you and He ignore the physical after that moment in favor of just a spiritual relationship with God? With the Eucharist He gives us the chance to also experience Him on the physical level, an integral part of our being.

God knows the number of hairs on my head…hardly a situation where he is ignoring my physical existence. Your claim that you experience him on a physical level. Even if there was a real bodily presence as claimed by the RCC, your claim is defeated by the fact that there is no physical interaction with a body….you physically chew and physically digest bread and not flesh. You simply don’t experience him on a physical level, your abuse of the English language notwithstanding.

If our bodies have no means by which to physically participate in the eternal life of Jesus, then how can they be restored eternally in a bodily resurrection?

Is there is some law to creation that prevents an all powerful God from restoring and/or resurrecting a human body in any means other than a Eucharistic miracle?

They wither and die, remaining ever mortal, without the nourishment of Christ physically through the Eucharist, for there is no other eternal physical nourishment.

God spoke and the universe was created….I don’t think that he is in any way limited in the fashion that your post suggests

To believe not take Jesus at his word….

This sort of bit gets tiring…to understand something figuratively is to believe what Jesus said, but to understand it figuratively. To not take Jesus at his word is to not believe what he said.

…. and believe that Jesus could not or would not make himself physically present in the bread and wine is to perpetuate the lie that matter is evil, or unworthy in some manner.

No, it is to consistently attribute the same meaning to a word or phrase….so that “physical presence” actually means a physical presence

That is what you share with the Gnostics.

swing and a miss

You’re still hung up on human flesh and blood and cannibalism.

No, I am still hung up on coherence.

 

[elvisman]

So the RCC teaches that God only pays attention to our physical nature by way of a real bodily presence at the Eucharist such that w/o it God would be ignoring our physical component? Please provide a reference for that teaching.
My hope is based on Jesus’s promise
He does provide a way for us to participate physically in his eternal life…it is called the resurrection.
God knows the number of hairs on my head…hardly a situation where he is ignoring my physical existence. Your claim that you experience him on a physical level. Even if there was a real bodily presence as claimed by the RCC, your claim is defeated by the fact that there is no physical interaction with a body….you physically chew and physically digest bread and not flesh. You simply don’t experience him on a physical level, your abuse of the English language notwithstanding.

Is there is some law to creation that prevents an all powerful God from restoring and/or resurrecting a human body in any means other than a Eucharistic miracle?
God spoke and the universe was created….I don’t think that he is in any way limited in the fashion that your post suggests
This sort of bit gets tiring…to understand something figuratively is to believe what Jesus said, but to understand it figuratively. To not take Jesus at his word is to not believe what he said.
No, it is to consistently attribute the same meaning to a word or phrase….so that “physical presence” actually means a physical presence
swing and a miss

No, I am still hung up on coherence.

Unfortunately, you’re not concerned with ADherence to his commands.
**Over and over again in Scripture Jesus tells us that we must do his will and obey his commands. This is how we participate in our salvation. **

As I’ve stated as nauseam - Jesus recognizes that we are tangible beings with tangible beeds. This is why he sometimes used physical means to heal people. This is why he instituted a visible Church with a visible leader (Matt. 16:15-19). This is why he instituted the Eucharist.

**Finally, in Matt. 28:20, Jesus assures us once again that he is with us until the end of time. **As he does many times in scripture, he wonderfully make his point with polyvalent symbolism. He is with us spiritually and physically.

**John 6:66 tells us of the disciples who left him because they couldn’t handle what he was telling them. **
This is the tragedy that has befallen many Protestant sects.

 

[Arandur]

I shall attempt to explain things differently, because it seems you have rarely understood what I was saying.

The NT directs its readers to Christ. There is one mediator, namely Christ between us and God….seems that you want to add a mediator, namely your church, between us and Christ.

Did you miss the many places in the Bible, indeed the primary revelation to Paul, that the Church IS Christ? Christ is the Head of the Body. Or the fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, that Christians are told to go to the Church for resolution of disputes, that Paul speaks of the authority of the apostles as greater than the angels, and that people are to follow what they teach because the Holy Spirit guarantees the inerrancy of their teaching, and how Paul instructs the Church on how to set up successors, following traditions passed on, etc. If you ignore the Church you are ignoring Christ (there’s even a passage that says just that!). Good luck with that.

reflecting actual apostolic teaching w/o non-apostolic additions

The Catholic Church has no non-apostolic additions since it retains apostolic succession and authority.

Yes, God himself thought it proper to reference scripture in support of his claims…the apostles taught by repeating what they had heard Christ say and by telling what they had seen Christ do. It was rare for them to introduce any novelty.

Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into remembrance of all things (for he was final revelation), and John tells us that Jesus did much more than is contained in the Gospels. Seems it’s not all in Scripture, and indeed, even the Apostles didn’t remember everything, and how could they, when God is infinite? The Holy Spirit’s gift here is an eternal and ongoing mission to help us understand the infinite God revealed completely in Christ. The manner Christ chose to accomplish this was through setting up the Church.

Actually I am hung up on the use of words such as “literal”. Like Augustine, I believe that to literally eat Jesus’s flesh would result in a cannibalistic act….your manner of using “literal” causes the word to take on a meaning that is anything but “literal”.

Jesus becomes physically present in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. If a person has a physical presence, we typically call it a body. We consume it. How is this not literal?

This seems to be the opposite of what the RCC teaches. Doesn’t the RCC say that the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ’s body such that the bread ceases to be present and that the body becomes present? It seems that you have it exactly backwards. At most, you should say that the substance of the body is manifested in proximity to the accidents of the bread…though I must say that the philosophy of accidents and substances seems untenable.

Nope, what I am saying is consistent with the Catechism, the Fathers, and so forth. The Bread and Wine do not take on the physical properties of flesh and blood, but that has no bearing on the Presence.

You’ve ignored all of my analogies to other manifestations. I don’t understand why.
Can Jesus become a lamppost if he wants? A burning bush?
If he did so, would he still be Jesus, a person? Would he be physically present? Don’t we call the physical presence of a person a “body?” Then why would we not call the lamppost or the bush the “body” of Christ?
If he became a lamppost or a burning bush, would we consider that lamppost or burning bush just an ordinary lamppost or burning bush?
Jesus becomes bread and wine. Once he becomes so, he is fully present. It is his physical body and blood. It need not be carved up human flesh to be so.

what physical form of his body at the Lord’s Supper? Is it bread and wine?

He was both in his human form and in the bread and wine.

If he is physically present, where are the physical attributes of that presence…if you say it is the physical attributes of the bread and wine then it is bread and wine that are physically present. I suspect, as with “literal” your manner of using “physical” and “present” results in terribly distorted meanings for both of those words.

When Jesus was in human form, was that form just a normal human form? Or did it also contain Jesus’s full divinity? In the same way, the Bread and Wine is no longer “just” bread and wine.

Answer my questions above and maybe I’ll understand what you think is so wrong with how I’m using the words “physical” and “present.” Or maybe you’ll understand that I’m not the one twisting words.

as he was at the incarnation? Hardly. At the incarnation his presence could be sensed. His body possessed physicality.

If Jesus chooses to incarnate himself as Bread and Wine, can’t the Bread and Wine be sensed? Doesn’t it possess physicality? That someone is too blind to recognize it as Christ himself is only a conviction against themselves, not against what Jesus is doing, for many, many people who saw Jesus as a living man did not perceive that he was the Christ. Do not blame Jesus for your inability to see.

the same sort of edification that prayer and meditation achieves.

So communion is no different? Is it necessary? Why? Do the Sacraments actually “DO” anything special, or are they just neat forms of prayer and meditation?

 

[Arandur]

So the RCC teaches that God only pays attention to our physical nature by way of a real bodily presence at the Eucharist such that w/o it God would be ignoring our physical component? Please provide a reference for that teaching.

You misunderstood. The Eucharist is Jesus continuing to meet us physically, being with us physically. Since we are both physical and spiritual creatures, his promise to be with us would be half hollow if he abandoned us physically (a sphere that Satan otherwise has control over). God wants to be with us. In the Eucharist, He continues to be so.

My hope is based on Jesus’s promise

Good. Then you should heed John 6 where Jesus promises that you will have eternal life if you eat his flesh and drink his blood. What do you think that means, otherwise? Studying his word and praying to him is somehow “eating” his “flesh?” Who’s abusing the English language now? Where is that connection made? It had better be made throughout all of the other connections (such as in the OT), as well, if this is the case. I don’t think the Passover meal is about praying and studying instead of eating and drinking.

He does provide a way for us to participate physically in his eternal life…it is called the resurrection.

A resurrection and eternal life that he says we only have if we eat his body and drink his blood. Or did you miss that? A body needs food and drink, and Jesus provides it in himself, food indeed and drink indeed.

God knows the number of hairs on my head…hardly a situation where he is ignoring my physical existence. Your claim that you experience him on a physical level. Even if there was a real bodily presence as claimed by the RCC, your claim is defeated by the fact that there is no physical interaction with a body….you physically chew and physically digest bread and not flesh. You simply don’t experience him on a physical level, your abuse of the English language notwithstanding.

No physical interaction with a body? Jesus is still a person is he not? If he becomes bread and wine, and I interact with that bread and wine, then I am interacting with him, and he is physically present before me, with me, and even in me after I eat and drink.

Is there is some law to creation that prevents an all powerful God from restoring and/or resurrecting a human body in any means other than a Eucharistic miracle?

No, but He chose to use the Eucharistic miracle. What other indication of how He does it do you have? Jesus met us on our level, physically. The Eucharist continues this.

God spoke and the universe was created….I don’t think that he is in any way limited in the fashion that your post suggests

Again, God could have chosen something different, but by His words He has told us that He is giving physical nourishment. Food and drink indeed, that we must eat and drink to gain eternal life. It’s really pretty clear. Why do you, like Jesus’ audience, find those words so objectionable? If Jesus told you that by eating dung beetles you would gain eternal life, who are you to question him?

No, it is to consistently attribute the same meaning to a word or phrase….so that “physical presence” actually means a physical presence

And how have I not used “physical presence” to mean just that? Is it that you don’t think Jesus could possibly manifest himself in any manner other than his singular human form?

swing and a miss

Then why do you resist the idea that Jesus meant eternal life can come through a physical food and drink (indeed) in addition to spiritual? Why do you limit God to the spiritual?

 

[IronHammer]

This sort of bit gets tiring…to understand something figuratively is to believe what Jesus said, but to understand it figuratively. To not take Jesus at his word is to not believe what he said.
No, it is to consistently attribute the same meaning to a word or phrase….so that “physical presence” actually means a physical presence
swing and a miss

Then just imagine how tiring (and saddening) it is for us to always hear from Protestants that Jesus was speaking metaphorically/spiritually,etc. That He didn’t really mean what he said. Why can’t you just take his commandment at face value? It seems to me rather daring to try to make Jesus mean anything other than what he said!

 

[IronHammer]

Good. Then you should heed John 6 where Jesus promises that you will have eternal life if you eat his flesh and drink his blood. What do you think that means, otherwise? Studying his word and praying to him is somehow “eating” his “flesh?” Who’s abusing the English language now? Where is that connection made? It had better be made throughout all of the other connections (such as in the OT), as well, if this is the case. I don’t think the Passover meal is about praying and studying instead of eating and drinking.

Very nice. I hadn’t seen that argument before in quite that way.

 

[Radical]

You’ve done a good job laying out what you believe St. Augustine to mean in his sermons,….

thanks

But I do have one more thing to point out; an analysis from a socio-cultural perspective.

If St. Augustine had been saying that the Eucharist is only symbolic, why is there no uproar?

This was raised in the previous thread and I will acknowledge that it is perhaps your strongest argument. That being said, you should note that I am not suggesting that Augustine said that the Eucharist was only symbolic. In his view there were many aspects to the Eucharist. It was a sacrifice….though sacrifice is defined by certain ECFs as being any good work. It was a means of achieving union with the other members of the body of Christ. It was spiritual nourishment etc. There are many points of possible agreement with other ECFs concerning what the Eucharist was about. Further, at the time the term “real bodily presence” had not been utilized. Even now, when the term has achieved such an exalted status and is used so extensively and when detailed descriptions of the Eucharistic miracle have been spelled out, one will find a vast array of descriptions of that Real Presence (among conservative RCs)….and within that vast array we find some descriptions that amount to no more than (what others would label) a mere spiritual presence. I would like to know how you would distinguish between a strong spiritual presence of Jesus at the Eucharist and the Real Bodily Presence claimed by the RCC (when that alleged real bodily presence totally lacks any physical attribute of a human body)? If you choose to take up this challenge I would also ask that you strictly stick to the normal meaning of the words you employ….and since I haven’t given you a definition of what a “spiritual presence” would be like, use a definition that you think would be still count as a spiritual presence, but make it as close to a real bodily presence as you can. Afterwards, tell me if you think the difference in the two understandings merits a blow-up within the church.

 

[Radical]

Then just imagine how tiring (and saddening) it is for us to always hear from Protestants that Jesus was speaking metaphorically/spiritually,etc.

Well then, maybe you should avoid threads where the OP asks to hear from such Protestants…

That He didn’t really mean what he said.

He meant exactly what he said…in a figurative manner

Why can’t you just take his commandment at face value? It seems to me rather daring to try to make Jesus mean anything other than what he said!

This is ridiculous…you yourself don’t think Jesus was speaking literally when he said that he was the true vine, or that he was the gate. Why can’t you just understand that I view the “this is my body” in the same fashion as you view the “I am the true vine” passage? You think a distinction should be made between those declarations and I don’t…It is no more daring for me to think that Jesus meant “this is my body” figuratively than for you to think that he meant “I am the true vine” figuratively…what is daring is to proclaim a miracle when nothing has happened. When Jesus healed, a visible and physical healing occurred. When he calmed the seas, a visible and physical calming occurred. When he changed water to wine, a visible and physical change occurred…When he allegedly becomes present at the RC Eucharist, no visible or physical change occurs…now there is a significant distinction that I am not prepared to dismiss…how daring of you to do so.

 

[JonNC]

Then just imagine how tiring (and saddening) it is for us to always hear from Protestants that Jesus was speaking metaphorically/spiritually,etc. That He didn’t really mean what he said.

Then just imagine how tiring (and saddening) it is for us (the Lutherans and other “protestants” who agree with the CC on the real presence) to always hear from Catholics that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally in our Church. That He really only meant only meant what He said for Catholics.

It is tiring (and saddening) that tiring (and saddening) goes both ways, wouldn’t you say?
And we preach Christ crucified.

Jon

 

[MaidoftheWood]

I must first confess that I have not read through all the lengthy posts on this thread…

I just would like to add my 2 cents, which consist of a quote on the Eucharist by Flannery O’Connor: (I LOVE this quote by her. lol)

(I include the rest of the paragraph in which the now-well-known quote is contained)

(emphasis mine, the first being the quote I mean)

"Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the ‘most portable’ person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, ‘Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.’ That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."

 

[judechild]

In his view there were many aspects to the Eucharist.

Of course there are; it is both physical and spiritual; St. Augustine calls it the “life-giving flesh”. I’ve learned since our last exchange that he was philosophically exploring how flesh could aid the spirit. His logic (he was a platonist) went like this: the soul is what gives life to the body. The soul constantly assists the body. Can the flesh have any effect on the soul? His answer was yes, in Jesus’ case it did. He pointed out all the instances where Jesus’ flesh (by touching people, breathing on them, etc) cause healing both in the flesh: cured blindness, lameness; and true spiritual healing: exocisms, faith. He concluded that Jesus’ “life giving flesh” is indeed be beneificial to our souls.

Further, at the time the term “real bodily presence” had not been utilized. Even now, when the term has achieved such an exalted status and is used so extensively and when detailed descriptions of the Eucharistic miracle have been spelled out, one will find a vast array of descriptions of that Real Presence (among conservative RCs)….and within that vast array we find some descriptions that amount to no more than (what others would label) a mere spiritual presence.

I don’t see much to this. The term “Trinity” was not used since the beginning either, it is a normal linguistic development to describe a Mystery in a way better than before. The fact that the word “transubstantiation” was not used until the 4th Lateran Council should not be seen as the first time that mode of thought came into existence. The unfortunant fact that many Roman Catholics are confused about what their Church teaches (or even refuse to believe her) does not effect the value of the Doctrine. The Church has always taught that contraception is wrong, she currently teaches that contraception is wrong, and she will always teach that contraception is wrong. That’s amazing when you think about it: the **majority **of the laity and many in the clergy apparently believe contraception is okay, but the Truth is the Truth, and the Church will not change her teaching based on the arbitrary whims of people. The Church teaches (has taught, and will always teach) that the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

I would like to know how you would distinguish between a strong spiritual presence of Jesus at the Eucharist and the Real Bodily Presence claimed by the RCC (when that alleged real bodily presence totally lacks any physical attribute of a human body)? If you choose to take up this challenge I would also ask that you strictly stick to the normal meaning of the words you employ….and since I haven’t given you a definition of what a “spiritual presence” would be like, use a definition that you think would be still count as a spiritual presence, but make it as close to a real bodily presence as you can. Afterwards, tell me if you think the difference in the two understandings merits a blow-up within the church.

I don’t understand your challenge; I don’t want to play word games kyrie. But yes, I firmly believe that a prominent bishop publicly disbelieving in the Real Presence would cause a “blow-up” within the Church. The things is, though, there’s not even a mumble of discontent that has come down to us. Here’s another St. Augustine quote: “That bread you see on the altar, made holy by the Word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice - or rather, what fills the chalice, made holy by the Word of God - is the blood of Christ.” He was speaking to the newly baptized and teaching them of the Mysteries they were previously not even allowed to look at. He, like the other Early Church Fathers and even Christ Himself is not using the language of symbolism; and this is something Luther himself saw.

 

[Radical]

I don’t see much to this. The term “Trinity” was not used since the beginning either, it is a normal linguistic development to describe a Mystery in a way better than before.

right, but until the Arian controversy variation existed b/c a precise description had not been formalized…after the controversy, a precise required belief was enforced. W/o a precise description of what happens or didn’t happen in the Eucharist variation existed. That is why quite a wide spectrum can been seen in the writings of the ECFs. For example, Tertullian calls the bread a figure and then goes on to explain how such a thing is appropriate given the previous occasions that bread and wine have been used to symbolize body and blood in scripture.

The Church teaches (has taught, and will always teach) that the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

I am concerned with whether the Lord ever taught that “the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine”…and the existence of such a teaching somewhat later doesn’t mean that he did.

But yes, I firmly believe that a prominent bishop publicly disbelieving in the Real Presence would cause a “blow-up” within the Church.

That is the argument from silence that you find attractive. The argument from silence that I find more convincing is the one based on the fact that, although he wrote volumes and although he specifically dealt with passages such as John 6, Augustine never described anything approaching transubstantiation (by using the words of his time). Here is what he did say in OCD bk III:

For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner…For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification;…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.***

I like to let Augustine speak for himself and it seems pretty clear that if the bread signifies the Lord’s body, then it is Augustine’s position that to take the bread for the body is a mark of weakness and bondage.

. Here’s another St. Augustine quote: “That bread you see on the altar, made holy by the Word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice - or rather, what fills the chalice, made holy by the Word of God - is the blood of Christ.”

This can be understood in a number of ways. We agree with Augustine that the bread is the body of Christ. But is the bread a) symbolically; b) transubstantially or c) literally the body of Christ? In that sentence Augustine doesn’t provide clarification…but one is hard pressed to reconcile what he wrote in OCD bk 3 with options b) or c).

 

[Arandur]

For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner…For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does notcarry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification;…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.**

I like to let Augustine speak for himself and it seems pretty clear that if the bread signifies the Lord’s body, then it is Augustine’s position that to take the bread for the body is a mark of weakness and bondage.

This can be understood in a number of ways. We agree with Augustine that the bread is the body of Christ. But is the bread a) symbolically; b) transubstantially or c) literally the body of Christ? In that sentence Augustine doesn’t provide clarification…but one is hard pressed to reconcile what he wrote in OCD bk 3 with options b) or c).

First, what’s missing from the elipses in your quotations? Who was his audience? Was he responding to anyone or a particular position?

Second, look at what I bolded above. IF something is said figuratively and is taken literally (such as, perhaps, a six “day” creation in the exact manner proscribed in Genesis), he’s noting a problem. IF however something is said literally and is not taken as such, but is taken figuratively, then what do you suppose his judgment is on it? For example, Paul dealt with some (and indeed, there are many variations of this thought today) who believed that the references to Jesus’ resurrection were meant figuratively. He responded by clarifying that they were literally true, or our faith was in vain. Indeed, even before the Lord’s Passion, perhaps even his own apostles thought that he was speaking figuratively of his death and resurrection. And then, of course, there’s all the variation on doctrines today among the many denominations, such as about Baptism, and whether a literal washing with water was necessary and when and so forth. Do you think Augustine thought baptismal water was just a sign and the Sacrament didn’t really effect anything by the action?

I do question your interpretation of the passage, however. Looking at just this paragraph, what I’ve italicized appears to refer to the method and procedure of performing a ritual, as supported by the following paragraph as well. It could, for instance, be an indictment against overly literal performance of a ritual, such as Baptism by immersion only and in a river. Further, normally “spiritual freedom” would be in a class of language of observing things in the eyes of faith, beyond mere appearances on earth. Taking the bread and wine as just bread and wine requires no spiritual insight, but is easily seen by those in “carnal bondage,” unable to see past the mere physical. Consider the disciples on the road to Emmaus who recognized the Lord in the breaking of the bread, but could not perceive him otherwise. Those without spiritual freedom, but in carnal bondage, would have just seen a man sharing bread with them. The disciples, though, saw Christ truly IN the Eucharist.

As to your a-b-c argument, perhaps you forget that Augustine believed the Catholic Church was led in dogmatic matters inerrantly by the Holy Spirit. He would, of course, believe this divine Authority. You see, non-Catholics have only their interpretations and best guesses and hopeful feelings that they are interpreting the Spirit correctly to guide them. If they don’t fully understand something, or can’t refute an argument made against one of their beliefs for lack of knowledge or understanding, who can they refer to to put their trust in? Catholics, on the other hand, can place their faith in the Authority of Christ as head of the Church and the gift of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church to preserve it from error.