Saint Augustine and the Eucharist

[Arrowood]

One of my high school students found this quote from Saint Augustine on an anti-Catholic site and used it to refute my claim that belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist was a consistent belief until Zwingli taught it was just a symbol in the 1500s.

CHAP. 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. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

I checked the quote and found it in *Saint Augustine on Christian Doctrine, *Book 3, Chapter 16,. The quote doesn’t seem to be taken out of context in the web site.

I’m appealing to any Augustine experts out there. What was Augustine’s belief about the Eucharist? Can this quotation be reconciled with a belief of Jesus’ True Presence?

I did explain that the Magisterium “trumps” theological opinions of Church Fathers, or of any other theologians for that matter, but to skeptical teenagers my claims sounded like “because the Church says so,” which is true but is not accepted by today’s teens very easily. My original claim weakened the magisterial claim in their eyes.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this for me and for my incredibly astute but skeptical students!

 

[beng]

A piece that I wrote to refute the erroneous notion and the intellectually dishonest way Protestant used St Augustine against the Real Presence:

Augustine c 450:

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

First, couples of other St Agustine quotes:

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Second, This should elaborate St Augustine’s exposition on John 6 where he refuted the infamous Protestant prooftext on Eucharist (John 6:63)

Third, St Augustine WAS a Catholic Bishop. A Bishop adhere to Catholic doctrines. The real presence is a very important Catholic doctrine.

Now… how do we square all of that with the “figurative” commment on his Sermon on Christian Doctrine? It would seem that by figurative St Augustine means that we should not think carnally about “eat My flesh”. We would not need to eat Jesus carcass. This explanation is consistent with St Augustine teachings especially his sermon on John 6 in that link.

 

[Arrowood]

Thank you Beng! Your response helps a lot! I did refute another quote by Saint Augustine used by the same web site by saying “Catholic doctrine does not hold that when we eat the Eucharist that we are eating Christ’s body as if we were chewing on sinew and muscle tissue, but that the host and wine become Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity in a mysterious, sacramental way. Christ instituted the Sacrament in such a way that we can be intimately joined to Christ body to body in a way that is acceptable to human nature.”

My guess was that the problem was one of modern translation of the ancient use words like “figurative.” To us figurative means symbolic. What is Augustine’s meaning of the word? Does it mean “sacramental” or “mysterious” or does it just mean “not literal” as you explained and I describe above?

 

[beng]

You’re welcome.

I refuted alot of bogus website that make it seems that there are even ONE father who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence. I think it’s from the same site.

Here’s some of my refutation that I can dig. Actually I have one more, which IMO was very good. But I think it’s gone in lala land now. :

Clement of Alexandria:

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

First, let see a couple of quotes from Clement:

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.”
Clement of Alexandria,The Instructor,2(ante A.D. 202),in ANF,II:242

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Second of all, this is part of The Real Presence entry from NewAdvent.org:

If, moreover, the reader finds in some of the other Fathers difficulties, obscurities, and a certain inaccuracy of expression, this may be explained on three general grounds:

* because of the peace and security there is in their possession of the Church's truth, whence resulted a certain want of accuracy in their terminology;
* because of the strictness with which the Discipline of the Secret, expressly concerned with the Holy Eucharist, was maintained in the East until the end of the fifth, in the West down to the middle of the sixth century;
* **because of the preference of many Fathers for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, which was especially in vogue in the Alexandrian School (Clement of Alexandria**, Origen, Cyril), but which found a salutary counterpoise in the emphasis laid on the literal interpretation by the School of Antioch (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret). Since, however, the allegorical sense of the Alexandrians did not exclude the literal, but rather supposed it as a working basis, the realistic phraseology of Clement (Pæd., I, vi), of Origen (Contra Celsum VIII, xiii 32; Hom. ix, in Levit., x) and of Cyril (in Matt., xxvi, xxvii; Contra Nestor., IV, 5) concerning the Real Presence is readily accounted for. (For the solution of patristic difficulties, see Pohle, "Dogmatik", 3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908, III, 209 sqq.)

continue eblow

 

[beng]

Third of all, try to read the whole context of the quote you gave here. The quote you gave is somewhere in the middle.

Now, what to make of all of this? Well first of all we have to understand the theology and philosophy of the East. Also we have to understand the use of term. It seems that terms like “figurative” or “symbol” which are applied to the Real Presence do not have the same meaning as everyday English. One of the more extreme example is a Church Father from the East called Theodore. He use the term “symbol” alot in his apologetic dialog (which he structure it like St Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, where there are two characters debating each other). But it’s beyond any doubt he believe in Real Presence since in the other part of the dialog he said that after the invocation of the word (the Eucharistic prayer) the bread and wine change substance.

This is also the case with St Clement of Alexandria. If you look at the context of the quote you gave it’s beyond any doubt that St Clement of Alexandria believes in the Real Presence. In fact in the same Chapter after the quote you gave, we have:

Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. “For Moses,” He says, “gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh, and as flesh, consequently, that has risen through fire, as the wheat springs up from decay and germination; and, in truth, it has risen through fire for the joy of the Church, as bread baked. But this will be shown by and by more clearly in the chapter on the resurrection. But since He said, “And the bread which I will give is My flesh,” and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh.

His flesh is bread baked!

continue below

 

[beng]

Tertullian c. 200 AD

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

Like the previous, let’s look at Tertulian’s other quotes concerning the Real Presence.

continue below

 

[beng]

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body.** A figure**, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’–in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.”
Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419

Continue below

 

[beng]

Final

Second of all, here is the entire context of the quote you gave. Your quote is precise found in Chapter 37. DO READ the title of Chapter 37, it’s said, Christ’s assertion about the unprofitableness of the flesh explained consistently with our doctrine.. It seems like St Augustine he explain this proff text that maybe used by those who think that John 6:63 disprove the Real Presence.

Even in the previous Chapter 8 we found:

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God”

So,… what Tertulian really say in Chapter 37 is pretty much what St Augustine said about John 6:63. He brough this understandoing to the people who think that “our doctrine” (the Eucharist) is somehow contradicted by John 6:63. It’s not.

Just because he used the word “figure” does not mean that the he thinks the Eucharist as symbolic as can be shown by the context and by his other statements.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Hey,

Not being an expert, I should say that I’ve come across this objection, and it sounds much like the objections to the Papacy in the time of the “Great Schism” when there were actually 3 “popes” or rather 2 antipopes and 1 valid pope, and similar to the Gregory the Great “no body should be universal bishop” type arguments.

People without a knowledge of the specific situation and how it relates to Augustine’s overall teaching latch onto things and end up making St. Augustine look like he can’t decide between symbolic representation or Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Perhaps an answer would be that Augustine was seeking to show that it was figurative in the sense that “it was not literal like the Pharisees thought it was literal in John 6.” Not that “it’s not literal in the Eucharist” but rather that it’s not literal of Christ’s body during His ministry on earth. Maybe that helps, maybe not, but clearly Augustine was not denying the Real Presence. Rather, he was giving advice on hermeneutics, and used that as an example.

 

[Vincent]

"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.’

"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.’

“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.”

(“J.N.D. Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines, pg. 212 c. 1978”, as quoted in “On the Real Presence”, by I. Shawn McElhinney, emphasis by McElhinney)

 

[beng]

Btw, for those who don’t know, J.N.D. Kelly is a Protestant.

 

[bbas_64]

!

Good Day, Arrowood

Do to the time constraints impossed on me I will be leaving for a couple weeks and will be unable to keep up with this thread. I first would like commend your students as they read great wrrittings of historical vaule as they strive to understand the views of the early Christians.

I hope that they do encouage you to do the same as these things are very intresting to the current understanding of Christians today, IMHO.

Seeing that Augustine view of John 6 has been broght up here his work on John is very enlightening as is most of his work.

“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

It may be true for those who are in step with the current understanding of the teaching Magisterium to view them as having the abilty to “trump” the ECF’S, but in Augustines day for the people who elected him to his office followed his teaching that is what he was elected to do.

But He (Jesus) instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)

Now, it may be true that his understanding is a bit different then yours given may factors, if any thing I hope this will compell you to study the works of Augustine as he had a great impact on the people served and many others after his death all the way up to the this very day.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[beng]

bbas 64:

But He (Jesus) instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)

Now, it may be true that his understanding is a bit different then yours given may factors, if any thing I hope this will compell you to study the works of Augustine as he had a great impact on the people served and many others after his death all the way up to the this very day.

Peace to u,

Bill

Did you even bother to read the whole exposition done by the Saint on that, which I put in the SECOND reply of this thread?

A food for thought

This is how St Augustine the great doctor and BISHOP of the CATHOLIC CHURCH refuted Protestant prooftext of John 6:63 that they use to deny the Real Presence.

Furthermore, this is the same St Augustine who said:

“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)

 

[bbas_64]

beng:

Did you even bother to read the whole exposition done by the Saint on that, which I put in the SECOND reply of this thread?
A food for thought

This is how St Augustine the great doctor and BISHOP of the CATHOLIC CHURCH refuted Protestant prooftext of John 6:63 that they use to deny the Real Presence.

Furthermore, this is the same St Augustine who said:

“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)

Good Day, Beng

I will go back and read your thoughts, not that I ever mentioned Jn 6:63 as a proof text, some OT / NT passover passages may be better IMO. Along with the historical views of the Tradition of the Sader meal that goes back 6-7 thousand years.

Me thinks you put much stock in the word catholic given the way it is used today as compared with the way it was used back then.

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” (Letter 43:19)

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Arrowood]

bbas 64:

Good Day, Arrowood

I first would like commend your students as they read great wrrittings of historical vaule as they strive to understand the views of the early Christians.

I hope that they do encouage you to do the same as these things are very intresting to the current understanding of Christians today, IMHO.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut bbas 64. Actually, it was my reading of the Fathers that inspired students to do their own research. I have read Augustine and the early Church Fathers in my master’s degree program in theology, and periodically in the three years since I graduated. However, I have not taken the time to become as familiar with them as I would have liked. Thus my need for other members of the Body of Christ to help me out!

It sounds like your reading of Augustine matches the reading of the web site my students uncovered. Would that be a correct understanding of what you wrote? If so, I would encourage you to carefully and prayerfully consider the evidence beng and others have been posting. They are very thoughtful and insightful!

I had forgotten that there were so many quotes from Augustine supporting the True Presence. Now that I am scanning through some of his writings, it is evident to me that he could not possibly have meant that the Eucharist is only representative of Christ in the way that Zwingli meant it.

 

[Arrowood]

If I may branch a little bit, there is another early theologian this article uncovered by my students uses. It refers to Pope Gelasius of Rome and his Against Eutyches and Nestorius:

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

I know nothing of Pope Gelasius, and was not able to find his writings in my collections. I did find a short biography on New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia online. Can anyone put this quote into historical context for me and explain it a little?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Saint Gelasius is simply using a different definition of the word “substance” than Thomas Aquinas later used. Saint Thomas was using the words in the sense employed by Aristotle. Gelasius obviously used them in a different sense.

Historical context is important. For more info, go here.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Also:

Against these testimonies, so clear, unambiguous, unanimous, to the antiquity of the Tridentine decree as to a conversion after consecration of that which makes bread to be bread, into the heavenly reality which is the Body of the Redeemer, it is useless to urge in contradiction passages in which it is stated that the “nature” or “substance” of bread remains after the advent of the Presence—*e.g. St. Chrysostom * :—" As before the bread is consecrated we call it bread; but when the Divine Grace has . . . consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is considered worthy of the name of the Lord’s Body, although the nature of bread remains in it" In ep. ad Caesar: Cf. Gelasius Max. Bibl. Vet. Patr., vol. viii, Lugd. 1677; S. Ephrem. Antioch. apud Photii Bibl. Cod. 229. Theodoret, Dial., vol. iv, Hal. 1772; Facundus herm., L. ix, defens. 3, c, 5.] . . .

. . . it is assumed wrongly that by the words “nature” and “substance” the Fathers cited, writing centuries before heresies had made accurate definition and precise terminology necessary, intended to mean what the Tridentine Fathers meant by them. This is demonstrably untrue. The words ‘substance’ and ‘nature’ are synonymous with what at Trent were called the ‘species’ or ‘accidents.’ This is surely evident (a) from the context of the various passages, where a conversion (metabolen), to use Theodoret’s word, of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is mentioned; (b) from the fact that they constantly and uniformly speak of such ‘nature’ and ‘substance’ as symbols; *(c) * from Leibnitz’ (a Protestant authority) well-known observation that the Fathers do not use these terms to express metaphysical notions. In system. Theol., ed. 2, Raess et Weiss, Moguntiae, 1825, p. 220.] *(d) * As regards Theodoret, from the confession of the Lutherans of Madgeburg that he is opposed to their doctrine and cannot be read with safety. Centuria, vi, c. 10.] It should be added that the passages attributed to Theodoret and St. Gelasius occur in works that are considered spurious by many competent critics.

 

[beng]

bbas 64:

Good Day, Beng

I will go back and read your thoughts, not that I ever mentioned Jn 6:63 as a proof text, some OT / NT passover passages may be better IMO. Along with the historical views of the Tradition of the Sader meal that goes back 6-7 thousand years.

Me thinks you put much stock in the word catholic given the way it is used today as compared with the way it was used back then.

Back then it was used as a Church with apostolic succession who submit to the Bishop of Rome. And Augustine approves of it by sying

causa finita est

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” (Letter 43:19)

Peace to u,

Bill

Umm, read the above Roma locuta est

 

[bbas_64]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Saint Gelasius is simply using a different definition of the word “substance” than Thomas Aquinas later used. Saint Thomas was using the words in the sense employed by Aristotle. Gelasius obviously used them in a different sense.

Historical context is important. For more info, go here.

Good Day, Dominvs

That disscusion with Theodoret is avaible on line I have read it before on ccel.org

Here is some of what I have saved if it helps tou to locate the rest,

Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773])

**Latin text: **Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

The Jesuit scholar Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. wrote: According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. See Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

Hope that Helps,

Bill