Real Presence and John 6

[Memaw]

I think what you say in your last paragraph is very likely. And this would signify the reason for a clarification of definition, when Transubstantiation was expressed, no?

I would like to know the context and circumstances surrounding the time that Transubstantiation was first proposed.

It began at the Last Supper when Jesus said. “This IS MY Body, This IS my Blood.” The Catholic Church just put a name to it. Like they did the name Trinity to Three Divine Persons in ONE. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Exactly. Just that. He had to die in order to become spirit, putting it simply. Not that he was not spirit before that as he existed even before the foundation of the world.

The whole concept about salvation in the sacrifice on the cross, that the Messiah had to die. It is in his death that we have the salvation. That is what the host is all about. The mass then narrates the major events, like the pascal meal, the passion and eventually his death; in which ultimately we can eat his divine body and blood, given for us for our salvation.

Thus you can see how important it is to eat his Body and drink his Blood because they are all parts of the whole narrative. We cannot just take some and leave out the other.

I said this before but most likely missed out by readers - the so called Last Supper, regarded as the institution of the Eucharist, was the foreshadow of the things to come. The apostles truly understood what Jesus meant, as they recalled it, right after the resurrection, on the road to Emmaus.

Is there a “dummy’s guide to the mass” type book which explains the mass simply?

 

[Horton]

A question for the Catholic’s (since it’s mostly Catholics replying - thank-you by the way!). If the host and chalice contain the resurrected Christ in his divine nature (and is therefore not cannibalism) how does it represent his sacrifice on the cross? Since he became human so that he could die for our sins?

We believe Jesus Christ was fully human AND fully divine. Which is why we call it the body, blood, soul & divinity of Christ.

Rather than trying to articulate what it means, especially since I’m not a theologian here is a good explanation from the USCCB.

Recalling these words of Jesus, the Catholic Church professes that, in the celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of the priest. Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:51-55*). The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.** This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called “real” not to exclude other types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real (cf. Catechism, no. 1374). The risen Christ is present to his Church in many ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood*.

Link: usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

 

[rcwitness]

I brought this up in another thread, but I’d like to mention it here too.

The resurrection account in Mark, talks about Jesus’ appearances. In chapter 16 verse 12, he expresses the appearance to two disciples in a distinct way.

After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.*And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

This is recorded in great length by Luke, in chapter 28. The only distinction in this story that seems to explain Jesus’ appearance as in “another form” would be in “the breaking of bread”. It seems appropriate to say that Jesus “was made known” and “appeared” to them in “the breaking of bread”.

Jesus, therefore, makes himself “appear” and “be known” in the Lord’s Supper. Luke relates very intently, that Jesus made Himself known through the Sacrament.

 

[PJM]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

My dear friend, with THAT profound understanding, you must be [a moral absolute, not a command] a Catholic, who alone [with the Orthodox] can and DO make Jesus/ GOD: “really, Truly and Substantially present” to us as is HIS Divine Will.

John 6: 56-57 {HOW COULD CHRIST OR THE AUTHOR BE MORE PRECISE IN THE LANGUAGE THEY CHOOSE?]

“[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him” …[WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT DOES TAKE PLACE IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION]

The LDS are not even truly “Christians” [as they use the same words; but give them VASTLY different meanings and definitions.

Even the[COLOR=“blue”] “in Spirit” you reference ignores John 4:23-24 [same author]

The Bible teaches and proves:

That their is only ONE True God [1st Commandment]

And even GOD can have only One set of True Faith beliefs Eph. 4:1-7; Mt. 16:18-19; John 17:17-20; Mt 28:18-20

And historically GOD has always selected just one “chosen people” [Exo 6:7] and Jesus did the same Jesus in Mt.16:18 “MY Church” singular."

God Bless you, that YOU were able to discern this is a sign that the Holy Spirit is working within you:thumbsup:

PRAY very much

GBY

" [23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. [24] God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth."

 

[Horton]

Is there a “dummy’s guide to the mass” type book which explains the mass simply?

There are but the USCCB web site has an explanation of the Mass and it’s free.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/index.cfm

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/upload/parts-of-the-mass.pdf

The above are fairly clear and not necessarily for “dummies” but you are an intelligent young woman who will understand what is written. If there is a part you need clarification on, just ask.

 

[Porknpie]

Is there a “dummy’s guide to the mass” type book which explains the mass simply?

A favorite:

Dr. Edward Sri’s book

There is a Dummy series book on the Mass. I own it but prefer Sri’s book above.

 

[Porknpie]

I believe that Augustine of Hippo was at these councils. He had a spiritual understanding of the Eucharist.

“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
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. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

“So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit." earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

Susan,

Yes, St. Augustine had a spiritual understanding (Amen).

But not ONLY a spiritual understanding.

Prefiguring the Eucharist, heavenly food was the Manna from heaven. Also heavenly food, that sustained the Israelites for 40 years in the desert, before they entered the promised land. And, Christ is the Passover Lamb. In the OT, one not only had to kill the passover lamb, one had to eat it, or your first born son would have been dead in the morning.

St. Augustine professed belief in the Real Presence (Christ meant what he said) and thus one was liable to judgment for consuming Christ unworthily. He professed the Eucharist to be a Sacrament.

See Tractate 26, NPNV 1-07

 

[Porknpie]

Certainly something blessed by God’s word is not common, but nothing in this quote states that the bread and wine are physically changed. Nothing in this quote goes beyond what’s stated in John 6:55. "

No the text is quite clear. Saint Justin Martyr quotes scripture… that the food IS his flesh and blood. Very literal. Nothing symbolic implied or stated.

Again, there’s nothing here that can’t be read as symbolic.

Nothing in St. Clement of Alexandria is symbolic. It’s all literal. He comments that the Eucharist gives GRACE and sanctifies.

This quote simply uses the verbiage of John 6:55 and does not take things a step further and state there is a change in substance.

Again, nothing symbolic in Origen’s writing. He makes it clear that the bread and wine are the flesh of God, “True Food”

Again, no specific statement that there’s a change in substance.

It’s 100% there. The Eucharist = the flesh of Christ.

This quote simply uses verbiage from John 6:55.

Yes. Irenaeus is quoting scripture. Christ meant what he said.

My previous statement stands that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that “Real Presence” wasn’t unanimously accepted in the Early Church.

ALL those quotes above are from early Christians, not even in the same geographic area mind you, who professed exactly what John 6 states. The Eucharist IS Christ. Nothing symbolic.

For what it’s worth, this site justforcatholics.org/a181.htm states that Duns Scotus acknowledged that transubstantiation was not an article of faith in the Church before the Thirteenth Century. I couldn’t find a citation of this statement so I’ll just leave it at that.

True. “Transubstantiation” gives a metaphysical explanation of HOW the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. But before then, Christians accepted that it was, without an articulated theology of how it happens.

This is off topic.

Perhaps. But it should give you pause: how is it that a Church in total apostasy, could be lead to Truth, be infallible, on the Canon of the New Testament in the late 4th century … some 300 years or so after when the “great apostasy” occurred.

There never was a great apostasy, never a need for a restoration some 1800 years later.

You at least tacitly believe this to be true, on the canon of the NT and trust the authority of the Catholic Church to have declared it so.

 

[Duane1966]

What I mean about Augustine and the statement of adoration is that the concept of Eucharistic adoration and the distinction between adoration and veneration had not been defined in his time. We can’t use our current definitions when reading back in this point of time when these words were not yet defined in such a way. Also, because Augustine believed that the elements became consecrated and holy it would make sense that he would honor these elements, just as some Christians venerate symbols, icons and sacred items today. An item being consecrated does not mean that it has undergone a physical change. (Maybe holy water would be an example - it is not physically changed, but is blessed or consecrated and would not be dumped down the drain or dumped into the gutter.) We can not impose our later definitions of adoration back on Augustine’s writing and know exactly what he meant. What he meant by adoration could be what people today mean by veneration. We need to look at the context of the entire writing to understand more fully what he was describing.

You have a major problem here. In City of God, Augustine uses the Latin word for venerate numerous time, with the saints and there relics. He says we venerate them. When he speaks about God, he says adore, adoration. He clearly knows the difference. So, in the passage about adoring the Eucharist, if he meant venerate, he would have said venerate. He had already used the terminology before. The distinction was well known in his time. Whoever told you what you have just stated is wrong.

I can appreciate that the term symbol had a slightly different connotation at that time. You did provide quotes from JND Kelly and Darwell Stone (who are Anglican and believe in the real presence) about the different understandings of the word. However the word symbol has never meant that an object transformed from one thing to another. The translators feel that the closest word to translate these terms from Greek or Latin to English is using terms symbol, figurative and metaphor and not the terms transformation, literal, and conversion.
JND Kelly distinguishes the symbolic understanding from the conversion understanding when describing the development of the ideas around the Eucharistic presence from the time period between Nicea and Chalcedon.

“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were TREATED and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up/search/440

So while we may agree that the connotation of the terms has changed over the centuries, there was at this time still a varied understanding of the Eucharistic elements that was distinguishable and defined by scholars.

Reread what he says, especially what I have highlighted. He says that the Real Presence terminology was unquestionably realist, how His Real Presence was there, and how we participated in it, is where theologians held different theories, and stressed different aspects. Notice what you highlighted, the distinction of what we see, and the reality that is there. See, even what you posted, Kelly is in no way saying that the theologians do not believe in the Real Presence. It was the HOW He was really present there, is what was debated.

Look at the Lutheran scholar Harnack, and see what he says about the terminology of symbol and figure in the early Church.

Are you saying that Anglican scholars who believe in the Real Presence can’t be objective, but Protestant scholars who don’t believe in the Real Presence can?

 

[Duane1966]

A question for the Catholic’s (since it’s mostly Catholics replying - thank-you by the way!). If the host and chalice contain the resurrected Christ in his divine nature (and is therefore not cannibalism) how does it represent his sacrifice on the cross? Since he became human so that he could die for our sins?

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/87-eucharistic-apologetics/430-christ-die-again-at-mass.html The middle section I hope explains your question, though I recommend the whole article.

 

[susanlo]

I think what you say in your last paragraph is very likely. And this would signify the reason for a clarification of definition, when Transubstantiation was expressed, no?

I would like to know the context and circumstances surrounding the time that Transubstantiation was first proposed.

I understand that there was a debate starting in the 9th century that continued over the centuries until the Lateran Council in 1215. This book by 19th century Protestant historian describes the controversies. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.xx.html It continues for 6 pages, but isn’t too long to read. Newadvent.org has articles on the different men noted in the controversy: Paschasius Radbertus, Ratramnus, Berengar, and Lanfranc for a Catholic reference. I don’t understand it completely, but it seems like there were a lot of complex understandings expressed over the centuries.

 

[Duane1966]

Bellarmine considering the words of Jesus:

This is my body. This is my blood…. Do this in memory of me.” He comments, “Surely laws and decrees ought to be promulgated in clear, precise, simple terms and not obscurely or ambiguously. Otherwise any man might plead ignorance and say: let the legislator speak plainly if he wants his law to be kept. Now what Christian ever doubted that our Lord in instituting this Sacrament gave orders and framed a law that it was to be renewed perpetually in his Church? That is the literal meaning of: Do this in memory of me. Since, then, these words of Christ are the expression of a law or command, to read figures or metaphors into them is to make Almighty God the most imprudent and incompetent of legislators.

“A man’s last will and testament should surely be drawn up in the straightforward speech of everyday life. No one but a madman, or one who desired to make trouble after his death, would imply metonymy in such a document. When a testator says, ‘I leave my house to my son John,’ does anyone understand his words to mean, ‘I leave to my son John, not my house itself standing four-square, but a nice painted picture of it’? In the next place, suppose a prince promised you a hundred gold pieces, and in fulfillment of his word sent a beautiful sketch of the coins, I wonder what you would think of his liberality? And suppose that, when you complained, the donor said, ‘Sir, your astonishment is out of place, as the painted crowns you received may very properly be considered true crowns by the figure of speech called metonymy.’ Would not everybody feel that he was making fun of you and your picture?

Now our Lord promised to give us his flesh and blood. The bread which I shall give you, he said, is my flesh for the life of the world. If you argue that the bread may be looked upon as a figure of his flesh, you are arguing like the prince, making a mockery of God’s promises. A wonderful gift indeed that would be, in which Eternal Wisdom, Truth, Justice and Goodness deceived us, its helpless pensioners, and turned our dearest hopes to derision.

“That I may show you how just the righteous is the position we hold, let us suppose that the last day has come and our doctrine of the Eucharist turns out to be false and absurd. If our Lord asks us reproachfully, ‘Why did ye believe thus of my Sacrament? Why did ye adore the host?’ May we not safely answer Him, ‘Lord, if we were wrong in this, it was you who deceived us. We heard your word, this is my body. Was it a crime for us to believe you? -St. Robert Bellarmine

 

[susanlo]

Susan,

Yes, St. Augustine had a spiritual understanding (Amen).

But not ONLY a spiritual understanding.

Prefiguring the Eucharist, heavenly food was the Manna from heaven. Also heavenly food, that sustained the Israelites for 40 years in the desert, before they entered the promised land. And, Christ is the Passover Lamb. In the OT, one not only had to kill the passover lamb, one had to eat it, or your first born son would have been dead in the morning.

St. Augustine professed belief in the Real Presence (Christ meant what he said) and thus one was liable to judgment for consuming Christ unworthily. He professed the Eucharist to be a Sacrament.

See Tractate 26, NPNV 1-07

When did Augustine state that he believed in the real presence? I haven’t seen anything that he wrote that goes further than an understanding of a spiritual presence. The tractates that you cited also say that John 6 should be understood spiritually and not carnally.

 

[susanlo]

You have a major problem here. In City of God, Augustine uses the Latin word for venerate numerous time, with the saints and there relics. He says we venerate them. When he speaks about God, he says adore, adoration. He clearly knows the difference. So, in the passage about adoring the Eucharist, if he meant venerate, he would have said venerate. He had already used the terminology before. The distinction was well known in his time. Whoever told you what you have just stated is wrong.

I am not very familiar with adoration or veneration and the differences between them. They seem to be very similar to me, and I am not sure where the line between the two are. I thought that Eucharistic Adoration was something that was started around the time of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Was Augustine the one to introduce adoration of the Eucharist?

Reread what he says, especially what I have highlighted. He says that the Real Presence terminology was unquestionably realist, how His Real Presence was there, and how we participated in it, is where theologians held different theories, and stressed different aspects. Notice what you highlighted, the distinction of what we see, and the reality that is there. See, even what you posted, Kelly is in no way saying that the theologians do not believe in the Real Presence. It was the HOW He was really present there, is what was debated.

He uses the term “realist,” but not real presence. His use of “realist” is not synonymous with ‘real presence.’ When was the term ‘real presence’ first used? Was that a common term in JND Kelly’s era? If you read the next few pages he describes in detail the development of beliefs. He clearly says that the idea of a conversion was a new idea started in the 4th century by Cyril of Jerusalem that began to spread and become more popular. The beliefs prior to this were “realist,” but did not involve a conversion of the substances.

Look at the Lutheran scholar Harnack, and see what he says about the terminology of symbol and figure in the early Church.

Are you saying that Anglican scholars who believe in the Real Presence can’t be objective, but Protestant scholars who don’t believe in the Real Presence can?

I have much respect for these scholars and do not question their objectivity. I mentioned that they were Anglican because in your post and previous posts it is emphasized that these scholars are “non-Catholic” or “protestant,” but still cite support for the real presence. I am not sure if their denomination is applicable, but if it were they would be on the side of the real presence.

 

[Duane1966]

When did Augustine state that he believed in the real presence? I haven’t seen anything that he wrote that goes further than an understanding of a spiritual presence. The tractates that you cited also say that John 6 should be understood spiritually and not carnally.

From the same book you link to in post 52, the author says this on pg. 500, about St. Augustine:

“Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: ‘They have drunk the blood of CHRIST, and have shed their OWN blood for Christ.’ He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a SAVING VIRTUE TO THE CONSECRATED ELEMENTS.”

Kelly:

“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.”

Stone:

“In an earlier passage than those already quoted from the -Enarrations on the Thirty-third Psalm-, St. Augustine uses the comparison between a mother feeding her child with her own body and the feeding of the children of God with the body and blood of Christ. He there says that our Lord has willed our salvation to be in His body and blood, and that His humility has made it possible for us to eat and drink these. The food which the mother eats becomes fit food for her infant child by means of the process of passing through her flesh.** In like manner the Wisdom of God feeds Christians; and the Incarnation and the Passion have made possible the gift to them of the flesh and blood of the Lord.”** [1:6]

Augustine:

You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God,is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins. – St. Augustine Sermons 227

 

[Duane1966]

I am not very familiar with adoration or veneration and the differences between them. They seem to be very similar to me, and I am not sure where the line between the two are. I thought that Eucharistic Adoration was something that was started around the time of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Was Augustine the one to introduce adoration of the Eucharist?

Veneration, can be given to anyone you honor or respect. Adoration can ***only ***be given to God. To adore anything but God is idolatry.

He uses the term “realist,” but not real presence. His use of “realist” is not synonymous with ‘real presence.’ When was the term ‘real presence’ first used? Was that a common term in JND Kelly’s era? If you read the next few pages he describes in detail the development of beliefs. He clearly says that the idea of a conversion was a new idea started in the 4th century by Cyril of Jerusalem that began to spread and become more popular. The beliefs prior to this were “realist,” but did not involve a conversion of the substances.

Actually, it is synonymous, and he shows it in this passage, which you posted earlier:

i.e… the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were TREATED and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood.

Notice also, he says both theories were around at the same time, they overlapped, and they are connected, in that they both affirm the Real Presence.

A conversion of the substances is quite clear in several church fathers:

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. – St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66

When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him? – St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5:3

For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. – Ibid. 4.18.5

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. – Origen Against Celsus 8:33

 

[susanlo]

From the same book you link to in post 52, the author says this on pg. 500, about St. Augustine:

"It is remarkable that Augustine, in other respects so decidedly catholic in the doctrine of the church and of baptism, and in the cardinal points of the Latin orthodoxy, follows the older African theologians, Tertullian and Cyprian, in a symbolical theory of the Supper, which however includes a real spiritual participation of the Lord by faith, and in this respect stands nearest to the Calvinistic or Orthodox Reformed doctrine, while in minor points he differs from it as much as from transubstantiation and consubstantiation**…He also expressly rejects the hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ’s body**, which had already come into use in support of the materializing view, and has since been further developed by Lutheran divines in support of the theory of consubstantiation. “The body with which Christ rose,” says he, “He took to heaven, which must be in a place … We must guard against such a conception of His divinity as destroys the reality of His flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon earth.” “I believe that the body of the Lord is in heaven, as it was upon earth when he ascended to heaven.”1025 Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: “They have drunk the blood of Christ, and have shed their own blood for Christ.” He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

Kelly: “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.”

Here realism does not mean transubstantiation. This is on page 447. On page 448 and 449 he summarizes all of the information he cited about Augustine’s writings on the Eucharist and says that he follows Cyprian and Tertullian in the symbolic understanding he mentioned on page 440. He ends with “His real point, however, is that Christ’s body and blood are not consumed physically and materially; what is consumed in this way is the bread and the wine. The body and blood are veritably received by the communicant, but are received sacramentally or, as one might express it in figura.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n459/mode/2up

Stone: “In an earlier passage than those already quoted from the -Enarrations on the Thirty-third Psalm-, St. Augustine uses the comparison between a mother feeding her child with her own body and the feeding of the children of God with the body and blood of Christ. He there says that our Lord has willed our salvation to be in His body and blood, and that His humility has made it possible for us to eat and drink these. The food which the mother eats becomes fit food for her infant child by means of the process of passing through her flesh. In like manner the Wisdom of God feeds Christians; and the Incarnation and the Passion have made possible the gift to them of the flesh and blood of the Lord.” [1:6]

I am not familiar with Stone or his book.

Augustine: “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins. – St. Augustine Sermons 227”

This is similar to Sermon 272 and does not show any signs of going further than metaphorical language. He doesn’t explain that there is a change of substance in the elements. david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
“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.” newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Couldn’t somebody believe in transubstantiation and the real presence and just feel that Augustine did not properly understand or was wrong? Isn’t it possible to believe that he was wrong on something? Why do people go so far and take quotations out of context to show that Augustine believed in a physical change in the Eucharist? He clearly wrote that John 6:53 was figurative (post #31). Why is it important to show that he believed it was literal?

 

[Duane1966]

"It is remarkable that Augustine, in other respects so decidedly catholic in the doctrine of the church and of baptism, and in the cardinal points of the Latin orthodoxy, follows the older African theologians, Tertullian and Cyprian, in a symbolical theory of the Supper, which however includes a real spiritual participation of the Lord by faith, and in this respect stands nearest to the Calvinistic or Orthodox Reformed doctrine, while in minor points he differs from it as much as from transubstantiation and consubstantiation**…He also expressly rejects the hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ’s body**, which had already come into use in support of the materializing view, and has since been further developed by Lutheran divines in support of the theory of consubstantiation. “The body with which Christ rose,” says he, “He took to heaven, which must be in a place … We must guard against such a conception of His divinity as destroys the reality of His flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon earth.” “I believe that the body of the Lord is in heaven, as it was upon earth when he ascended to heaven.”1025 Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: “They have drunk the blood of Christ, and have shed their own blood for Christ.” He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

So Schaff is saying Augustine believes in the Real Presence correct? Now look up the theory of the Real Presence. The very terminology of Real Presence means not symbolic, as we now understand symbolism.

Here realism does not mean transubstantiation. This is on page 447. On page 448 and 449 he summarizes all of the information he cited about Augustine’s writings on the Eucharist and says that he follows Cyprian and Tertullian in the symbolic understanding he mentioned on page 440. He ends with “His real point, however, is that Christ’s body and blood are not consumed physically and materially; what is consumed in this way is the bread and the wine. The body and blood are veritably received by the communicant, but are received sacramentally or, as one might express it in figura.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n459/mode/2up

Which is the sacramental part. I am not eating Jesus’ fingers, or His leg. I am consuming His flesh sacramentally, which is why Kelly says veritably receive. Kelly is saying truly eating Christ’s body and blood, but in the form of bread and wine.

This is similar to Sermon 272 and does not show any signs of going further than metaphorical language. He doesn’t explain that there is a change of substance in the elements. david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

Notice what Augustine says. He says what the chalice holds, after it has been consecrated, IS the blood of Christ. That’s why he mentions consecration, he doesn’t call it wine anymore. Ergo, Augustine believes some sort of conversion has happened.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
, 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." newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Notice what this passage is saying. It’s saying Augustine had a conception of Transubstantiation, just not a clear conception.

Couldn’t somebody believe in transubstantiation and the real presence and just feel that Augustine did not properly understand or was wrong? Isn’t it possible to believe that he was wrong on something? Why do people go so far and take quotations out of context to show that Augustine believed in a physical change in the Eucharist? He clearly wrote that John 6:53 was figurative (post #31). Why is it important to show that he believed it was literal?

Because every academic you have quoted in other places says Augustine believed in the Real Presence, which means he took John literally. And we have shown you where these same academics (except for Schaff), have stated the way you interpret the words symbol and figurative in the fathers, is not the way the fathers are using the words symbol and figurative.

 

[Porknpie]

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
“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.” newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Susan, I may be corrected here but I’m not aware of St. Augustine articulating a metaphysical explanation of HOW the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. He simply professes, and uses scripture (which is very Augustine) in stating that it IS.

Keep in mind that he was a wayward Catholic, who became a Manichaean for 9 years, all the while he continued searching for the truth, even if held in secret. Arriving in Milan, he was profoundly influenced by St. Ambrose. Here’s some Eucharistic words from Ambrose as well.

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).

"Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).

Note, I’m just finishing a class on St. Augustine at, coincidentally, the Augustine Institute. He had his hands full not only with the Manichaean’s but the Donatists (who threatened him) and the Pelagians as well.

Add in Arianism, and one can see a lot of 4th century heresies which tore at the faithful but were eventually, defeated. All the more reason to believe in Christ’s promise: to lead his Church to all truth, to be with it until the end of time, never allowing the gates of hell to prevail.