D
Duane1966
Guest
Yes.Couldn’t somebody believe in transubstantiation and the real presence and just feel that Augustine did not properly understand or was wrong?
Yes.Isn’t it possible to believe that he was wrong on something?
Why do you take him out of context, when even academics that you quote admit that he believed in the Real Presence? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you misunderstand the way that certain words were used in antiquity, even when passages have been posted by scholars showing that the way you are reading Augustine is not the way he intended?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 also clearly wrote that the Eucharist must be adored. So if he is being figurative about the Eucharist, he has just commanded idolatry. So either he is an idolater, or he is not. But if he is not, then you misinterpret how the word figurative and symbol were used in the early Church. Fortunately, for Augustine, just about every Augustinian scholar admits that the way he uses those words are not the way that you interpret them. The following passage is taken from this article: matt1618.freeyellow.com/realpresence2.htmlHe clearly wrote that John 6:53 was figurative (post #31).
The Fathers looked at the Eucharist in many ways. While primarily the Eucharist was seen in realist means (as a sacrifice and as the literal body and blood of Our Lord) some Fathers also entertained other means of viewing this mystery. Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen and even at times Augustine of Hippo were more allegorical in their approach and some Protestant apologists point to the symbolism used in the writings of these Fathers (and a few others) and claim that these Fathers did not take the realist view. However this is a serious error in anachronism, because what we call a symbol or figure today is not what the ancients held it to be. As the liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack (who was never fond of the Catholic Church) noted in his work History of Dogma, what we nowadays understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents. This is markedly different from the way the ancient Church understood the concept. To paraphrase Harnack: “At that time, ‘symbol’ denoted a thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies.” This point was also emphasized in the writings of the aforementioned J.N.D. Kelly, considered one of the greatest Protestant early church hisitorians of the twentieth century:
Code:Occasionally these writers [the Fathers] use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.'
Code:*Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type;** the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized.*** Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian's vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of 'to make present.'
Code:All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, **he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine. [4]**
This point is also amplified by the Anglican scholar Rev. Darwell Stone:
**Code:**To suppose that 'symbol in Clement of Alexandria or 'figure' in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is gravely misleading. [5]
The key misunderstanding above (referred to by Rev. Stone as “grave”) is why Protestant apologists are so far off base when they try to appropriate Fathers who were more allegorical then literal in their theological approaches as believers in the Real Presence different to what Catholics, the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans hold to. (Among those popularly appealed to include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine.) What we now call “symbol” is something completely different from what was so called by the ancient Church. This is why the failure to understand time periods, languages, customs, and thought patterns of the ancients will get one in a whole heap of trouble when they try to determine according to modern meanings of terms what the ancients meant by using the same terms.
A contemporary example of words undergoing a change in their usage is what has happened with the word “gay.” Compared with its usage only fifty years ago, the meaning is night and day different. This is the same with the concept of “symbol” or “figure” in what it means now and what it meant fourteen hundred plus years ago. **A little common sense is in order here: if the Divine Scriptures can be twisted as to their meaning by the unlearned and unstable among us (2 Pet. 3:14-17), why would anyone be naïve enough to think that the non-inspired writings of the Fathers are less susceptable to being misunderstood then the very Word of God is??? **
