St. Augustine and the Real Presence

[workingman]

This was created to not completely derail another thread. So Radical this is for you me and whoever wants to go with it.

posted by Radical from another thread John 6:66 “It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.”

Radical, your beloved F. van der Meer also says this following what you quote.

That rather strong assertion is not van der Meer’s final word on the matter, because he immediately proceeds to take into account some strong statements of Augustine that touch upon the Real Presence. Even then, however, he concludes: “These occasional flashes are, however, really secondary to the idea which time and again illumines his mind – namely, that through the eating of Christ’s Body and the drinking of his Blood, we become one with him and with each other.” (75) Indeed, at first glance Augustine does appear to hold for a merely symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Thus, in his letter to Bishop Boniface, written around 408, we read:

Frequently we speak in such a way as to say, [for example] when Easter draws near, “Tomorrow or the next day will be the Passion of the Lord”, and we say this although he suffered many years ago and although the Passion occurred once and for all. Likewise on a Sunday we say, “The Lord rose today” – even though very many years have passed since he rose. Now no one is so inept as to call us liars when we speak this way, because we are referring to these days according to the similitude they bear to those in which such events happened…Was not Christ immolated in himself once and for all? Nevertheless is he not immolated for the people in the Sacrament not only at the Paschal solemnities but every day, so that anyone who replies to a questioner that he is immolated does not lie? For if the sacraments did not bear a certain similarity [Lat. quondam similitudinem] to those things for which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord [Sicut ergo secundum quondam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est] and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. Believing is nothing else than having faith. And so when it is replied that the little child believes, even though he does not yet have an experience of the Faith, the response is given because he has the Sacrament of the Faith and has converted himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion. (76)

continued

 

[workingman]

continued from above

Another example can be found in his commentary on Psalm 3, in which he speaks of the “banquet in which the Lord entrusted and handed over to his disciples the symbol of his Body and Blood [in quo et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit]”. (78)
It must be admitted that the prima facie evidence – as reflected in the above statements, which are the strongest but not the only ones that can be adduced – would seem to support the conclusion of those who find only a symbolic understanding of the Eucharistic Mystery in Augustine’s writings. Such a conclusion, however, would indicate that Augustine’s Eucharistic teaching was at variance with that of St. Ambrose, from whom Augustine himself had received his catechesis on the Eucharist prior to his Baptism. There is nothing, however, in his own writings or those of his contemporaries or in the age immediately following his death that indicates that anyone perceived any difference between the teachings of these two men. And apart from the attempts of Berengarius to use Ambrose as well as Augustine to support his novel teaching, there has never been any serious doubt about the “realism” of Ambrose’s teaching. That extrinsic consideration aside, however, it can be demonstrated by means of the following reflections that Augustine did not teach a symbolic or merely spiritual doctrine in respect to the Eucharist Presence.

Augustine does not use the word sacrament in a manner identical with that of later theology. For him, it was the equivalent of the phrase sacred sign or figure and referred to the visible element in a holy action or activity or gesture. Thus, he writes: “Signs that pertain to divine things are called sacraments”; (79) “The signs of divine things are visible, but what we honor in them are realities that are invisible.” (80) “They are called sacraments because in them one thing one thing is seen, another is understood. That which is seen has a bodily appearance [speciem habet corporalem]; that which is understood has spiritual fruit.” (81) The visible element, of course, if it was really to be a sign, must have some kind of natural similarity to the holy reality or power for which it was a sign. This natural similarity, together with the word spoken over the visible element (one remembers his famous dictum: “The word comes to the element and it becomes Sacrament”), (82) is what raises the visible element from its status as being simply any sign and making of it a “sacred sign”. In all this, his usage was equivalent to St. Ambrose’s use of the word sacramentum, and to that the Greek Fathers when they used the words “type-antitype”. Indeed, for Augustine, the word sacrament was much wider than our notion, since it could be applied to many holy rites or gestures that were not sacraments in our sense of the Seven. Thus, in the passage cited above from his letter to Januarius, he calls the Feast of Pentecost a sacramentum, i.e., a visible sign of something sacred. From this visible element, Augustine always distinguished what he called the “reality” (the res) and the “power” (virtus) of the Sacrament. Nevertheless, for him this reality and power were not something that, in the Christian dispensation, existed apart from the sacramental sign. (83) As one can see by reading his commentary on John 6, Augustine held that both Jews and Christians had “sacraments”. Those sacraments (e.g., the manna and the Eucharist), although they were different in visible appearance or sign value, nonetheless signified the same Reality, viz., Christ. But the Christian received the Reality in truth, the Jews only in figure. “The manna was a shadow; this is the truth.” We would say, in our later terminology: the Christian sacraments contain what they signify. Thus, as we have seen above when considering the word in Ambrose, the word sacramentum for Augustine was the equivalent of what later theology would call the sacramentum tantum, the visible element considered by itself. To understand his thought about the “sacrament” in our sense of the word, one must consider not only what he says when using that word but also what he says concerning the reality or power present to us in or through the visible element.

If one examines again the texts cited above, which apparently support a merely symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, one can see the different perspective obtained by bearing in mind his notion of the word sacrament. The sacraments (i.e., the visible elements) bear a certain similarity to those things of which they are sacraments. Since Christ himself is our heavenly food, the sign or Sacrament of his Body and Blood is itself in a certain way Christ, i.e., since they are food and he is food. So too Baptism. The visible elements, the Sacrament, bear a certain resemblance to faith, which cleanses from sin and makes us belong to God.

This understanding illuminates, too, his words from the De Doctrina Christiana and his commentary on Psalm 3. When the Lord spoke of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood, he was not encouraging cannibalism, “something disgraceful or evil”; the eating (in the actual physical sense of that word) referred to the “figure” or symbol or sacrament that bears a similarity to the heavenly food, the Body and Blood of Christ himself, which are the reality (the res) eaten but are also “the food that eating does not diminish”. (84)

sources;deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2006/02/st_augustine_and_the_real_pres.html

 

[Radical]

Radical, your beloved F. van der Meer also says this following what you quote.

That rather strong assertion is not van der Meer’s final word on the matter, because he immediately proceeds to take into account some strong statements of Augustine that touch upon the Real Presence. Even then, however, he concludes: **“These occasional flashes are, however, really secondary to the idea which time and again illumines his mind – namely, that through the eating of Christ’s Body and the drinking of his Blood, we become one with him and with each other.” **(75) Indeed, at first glance Augustine does appear to hold for a merely symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Thus, in his letter to Bishop Boniface,…

workingman, the only other bit that van der Meer actually wrote in what you quoted is the bit that I have put in bold. The rest is the work of J T O’Connor (and Augustine where quoted)…it is from O’Connor’s book The Hidden Manna. So what is your point?

Remember, I had asked you to pick your three strongest passages where you could also supply the context and then make your case…

 

[MarcoPolo]

A fairly thorough article on Augustine and the Eucharist.

 

[utunumsint]

I’d like some clarification from Radical concerning what it is he beleives Augustine thought about the Eucharist? (e.g. simply a memorial, just a symbol of membership and unity, not important for salvation?)

I mean Augustine talked a great deal about this sacrament, in many different discussions and contexts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Catholicism is a holistic faith. Even if Augustine taught heterodoxy around the Eucharist (which he most certainly did not!), it wouldn’t mean we must all re-think the Church teaching on the subject. The ECF’s, great doctors of the Church, popes, councils, and 2,000 years of analysis and prayer on this is good enough. Isolating what one great man thought on the issue wouldn’t sway me anyway. Augustine also thought that unbaptized babies go straight to hell!? He wasn’t an infallible guy. Some ECFs taught that shaving one’s beard was a sin. We can’t take each individual to draw a whole picture of the truth.

 

[Radical]

I’d like some clarification from Radical concerning what it is he beleives Augustine thought about the Eucharist? (e.g. simply a memorial, just a symbol of membership and unity, not important for salvation?)

no, no and no.

I mean Augustine talked a great deal about this sacrament, in many different discussions and contexts.

agreed

MarcoPolo got me into a thread exactly on this topic before……it can be found here . I think that van der Meer (quoted above) got it right when he said, “These occasional flashes are, however, really secondary to the idea which time and again illumines his mind – namely, that through the eating of Christ’s Body and the drinking of his Blood, we become one with him and with each other.” One such time is found at Sermon 272. That sermon is a favorite one of Catholics as they typically rip a sentence out of the first paragraph, assume that sentence must be understood literally, disregard the rest of the sermon and declare their view proven. That sentence (see MarcoPolo’s link for an eg.) is:

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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

The sermon’s two paragraphs read:

One thing is seen, another is to be understood. What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard. So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ. It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction. The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9). I mean, you can now say to me, “You’ve bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand.” Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody’s mind: “We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man’s estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. That’s where he lifted his body up to; that’s where he’s going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that’s where he is now, seated on the Father’s right. How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.

So why in bread? Let’s not bring anything of our own to bear here, let’s go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were being exorcised, it’s as though you were being ground. When you were baptized it’s as though you were mixed into dough. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it’s as though you were baked. Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about the cup, even if it wasn’t said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves. Turning to the Lord, God the Father almighty, with pure hearts let us give him sincere and abundant thanks, as much as we can in our littleness; beseeching him in his singular kindness with our whole soul, graciously to hearken to our prayers in his good pleasure; also by his power to drive out the enemy from our actions and thoughts, to increase our faith, to guide our minds, to grant us spiritual thoughts, and to lead us finally to his bliss; through Jesus Christ his Son. Amen.

 

[Radical]

continuing with my bthoughts on sermon 272:

Here, with slight editing is how I described my understanding of Augustine’s view as demonstrated by sermon 272:

In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ
2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

If one can understand that in saying #2 and #3 that Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner, then one should be consistent and understand that in saying #1 Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner. IMHO Augustine is obviously speaking in a figurative manner at #2 and #3 and so a figurative understanding at #1 is also possible.

My complaint is that RCs produce the beginning of this sermon as prima facie evidence of Augustine’s belief in the RCs doctrine of Real Presence as if it that settles the matter.… The balance of the sermon is ignored and it is the balance of the sermon that eliminates (or at least calls into question) the prima facie case.

Further, Augustine first notes that one thing is seen and another is understood. He then asks, “How can bread be his body?” His answer to that question (which continues to the second paragraph) is not one which points to a bodily presence. No transformation of substance is suggested. I understand his answer to be:

1. Just as Paul tells the believers at Corinth that they are the body of Christ, Augustine’s congregation are also the body of Christ
2. If one accepts this understanding, then by partaking in the Eucharist one is partaking in the sacrament of peace and unity with one’s fellow believers (who are the members of Christ’s body)
3. A loaf of bread is suitable for this understanding because it is made from many grains (and many believers are united in the body), the grains are ground (believers are exorcised), mixed into dough (believers are baptized) and baked (believers receive the fire of the Holy Spirit).
4. “Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread.” This is how Augustine concludes his remarks on the loaf of bread.

In other words, Augustine (IMHO) says that the bread is Christ’s body b/c the bread is also a symbol for the church and the church is, in a figurative sense, the body of Christ. The bread is well suited to be that symbol. Recognize what the bread signifies and participate in the Eucharist so as to enjoy the unity symbolized by the bread. As you can see, I do not see sermon 272 as evidence of Augustine’s belief in a real bodily presence. Instead, I believe sermon 272 is better evidence of Augustine’s figurative understanding.

Hopefully, that gives you some clarification on what I think Augustine believed.

 

[Radical]

Even if Augustine taught heterodoxy around the Eucharist …,it wouldn’t mean we must all re-think the Church teaching on the subject.

I agree…however, it would seem that most conservative Catholics think that since Augustine is a Dr. of the Church there is no possible way that he could have believed in anything but a “real presence”. The reference to “unanimous consent of the fathers” fuels that assumption and of course, they have often been fed a string of proof texts which are accepted w/o question. Everything they see and read is interpreted through the lens of that assunption…and the result is absolutely predictable.

 

[utunumsint]

continuing with my bthoughts on sermon 272:

Here, with slight editing is how I described my understanding of Augustine’s view as demonstrated by sermon 272:

In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ
2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

If one can understand that in saying #2 and #3 that Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner, then one should be consistent and understand that in saying #1 Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner. IMHO Augustine is obviously speaking in a figurative manner at #2 and #3 and so a figurative understanding at #1 is also possible.

My complaint is that RCs produce the beginning of this sermon as prima facie evidence of Augustine’s belief in the RCs doctrine of Real Presence as if it that settles the matter.… The balance of the sermon is ignored and it is the balance of the sermon that eliminates (or at least calls into question) the prima facie case.

Further, Augustine first notes that one thing is seen and another is understood. He then asks, “How can bread be his body?” His answer to that question (which continues to the second paragraph) is not one which points to a bodily presence. No transformation of substance is suggested. I understand his answer to be:

1. Just as Paul tells the believers at Corinth that they are the body of Christ, Augustine’s congregation are also the body of Christ
2. If one accepts this understanding, then by partaking in the Eucharist one is partaking in the sacrament of peace and unity with one’s fellow believers (who are the members of Christ’s body)
3. A loaf of bread is suitable for this understanding because it is made from many grains (and many believers are united in the body), the grains are ground (believers are exorcised), mixed into dough (believers are baptized) and baked (believers receive the fire of the Holy Spirit).
4. “Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread.” This is how Augustine concludes his remarks on the loaf of bread.

In other words, Augustine (IMHO) says that the bread is Christ’s body b/c the bread is also a symbol for the church and the church is, in a figurative sense, the body of Christ. The bread is well suited to be that symbol. Recognize what the bread signifies and participate in the Eucharist so as to enjoy the unity symbolized by the bread. As you can see, I do not see sermon 272 as evidence of Augustine’s belief in a real bodily presence. Instead, I believe sermon 272 is better evidence of Augustine’s figurative understanding.

Hopefully, that gives you some clarification on what I think Augustine believed.

Thank you for this clarification. I appreciate it.

But it seems to me that Augustine believed that both baptism and reception of the eucharist were necessary for eternal life. How, do you think, can a symbol be necessary for salvation, according to Augustine’s understanding as you present it?

For example, in his work against the Pelagians, he has this to say:

For which reason, in the Church of the Saviour, infants believe by means of other people, even as they have derived those sins which are remitted them in baptism from other people. **Nor do you think thus, that they cannot have life who have been without the body and blood of Christ, although He said Himself, “Unless ye eat my flesh and drink thy blood, ye shall have no life in you.”[6] **Or if you are forced by the words of the gospel to confess that infants departing from the body cannot have either life or salvation unless they have been baptized, ask why those who are not baptized are compelled to undergo the judgment of the second death, by the judgment of Him who condemns nobody undeservingly, and you will find what you do not want,–original sin!

The context of this discussion has to do with the Pelagian claim that baptism was not necessary for salvation, but man, using his own powers can merit salvation, and babies do not require baptism to cleans them from original sin. He mentions that the Pelagians do not believe that the Eucharist is necessary to attain to eternal life. It seems strange the he would say this, when his understanding of the eucharist is only symbolic.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Radical]

Sorry, I must not have been clear enough. When you asked,

I’d like some clarification from Radical concerning what it is he beleives Augustine thought about the Eucharist? (e.g. simply a memorial, just a symbol of membership and unity, not important for salvation?)

…and I answered no, no and no. I meant, no, Augustine did not view the Eucharist as simply a memorial. No, Augustine did not view the Eucharist as just a symbol of membership and unity… and no, Augustine did not view the Eucharist as not important for salvation. I would, however, point out that nothing about a memorial, membership, unity or salvation requires the Eucharist to possess a real presence. In your opinion, does Augustine understand the Eucharist to serve any purpose that would require a real presence?

 

[John_Larocque]

In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ
2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

If one can understand that in saying #2 and #3 that Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner, then one should be consistent and understand that in saying #1 Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner. IMHO Augustine is obviously speaking in a figurative manner at #2 and #3 and so a figurative understanding at #1 is also possible.

If you take literally that the Eucharist is truly the body of Christ, it’s not a stretch to imagine that by participating in the Eucharist, the Christian believers - through the real presence in the Eucharist - becomes the body of Christ. In other words, #2 doesn’t need to be taken figuratively either. The Eucharist, which is truly Jesus, is the bond of communion of Christians.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If you take literally that the Eucharist is truly the body of Christ, it’s not a stretch to imagine that by participating in the Eucharist, the Christian believers - through the real presence in the Eucharist - becomes the body of Christ. In other words, #2 doesn’t need to be taken figuratively either. The Eucharist, which is truly Jesus, is the bond of communion of Christians.

I don’t why it’s so difficult for people to accept the"real" presence as being real? Jesus’s body, blood, soul and divinity are His complete reality and he is truly substantially present in the Eucharist.

 

[Alethiaphile]

There is no contradiction between believing that the bread and wine symbolize Christ’s body and blood, and believing they actually are Christ’s body and blood. A symbol, in its ancient usage, is merely something with a greater meaning behind it. Only if you separate a symbol from the reality that it represents do you have a problem.
Joe

 

[Radical]

If you take literally that the Eucharist is truly the body of Christ, it’s not a stretch to imagine that by participating in the Eucharist, the Christian believers - through the real presence in the Eucharist - becomes the body of Christ.

No, it is too much of a stretch…and to be consistent, you should have said that “the Christian believers - through the real presence in the Eucharist - become truly the body of Christ”

What exactly are you envisioning? Is it that the bread through transsustantiation becomes the body of Christ and then by ingestion of that “bread”, the bodies of the congregation are transsubstantiated into the body of Christ too. Would it be appropriate to worship the congregation b/c they too are truly the body of Christ? Nope, that is just too far out there to be taken literally.

 

[Radical]

Hello Joe,

There is no contradiction between believing that the bread and wine symbolize Christ’s body and blood, and believing they actually are Christ’s body and blood.

Yes, there is, if we look at what Augustine’s had to say on that matter. OCD Bk III:

At Paragraph 13 Augustine had written:

*Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, 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. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.

14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative.*

Please note that for Augustine:

a) The sign was one thing and what it signified was another thing. “…to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage…” A sign cannot signify itself, it can only be itself and signify something else…

b) after referencing the “the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord” he immediately warns that “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” and if that wasn’t clear enough he then specifies that that rule in question guards against “taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal”!

A symbol, in its ancient usage, is merely something with a greater meaning behind it.

And? Augustine defined it as: “For a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself…” OCD Bk II c 1. Later in that book he states “…and in the sacrament of His body and blood He signified His will through the sense of taste…”

Again, the sign is one thing and the thing it signifies it another thing,Augustine does not contemplate that the Eucharistic bread could be both a symbol of Christ’s body and also be Christ’s body.

 

[utunumsint]

Sorry, I must not have been clear enough. When you asked,

…and I answered no, no and no. I meant, no, Augustine did not view the Eucharist as simply a memorial. No, Augustine did not view the Eucharist as just a symbol of membership and unity… and no, Augustine did not view the Eucharist as not important for salvation. I would, however, point out that nothing about a memorial, membership, unity or salvation requires the Eucharist to possess a real presence. In your opinion, does Augustine understand the Eucharist to serve any purpose that would require a real presence?

Yes.

That being said, I don’t think Augustine had the jargon required to fully explain this point.

In hi commentary on John 6, he has this to say about he hypostatic union.

1. And He said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” Before we expound this, as the Lord grants us, that other must not be negligently passed over, where He says, “Then what if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” For Christ is the Son of man, of the Virgin Mary. Therefore Son of man He began to be here on earth, where He took flesh from the earth. For which cause it was said prophetically, “Truth is sprung from the earth.”(1) Then what does He mean when He says, “When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before”? For there had been no question if He had spoken thus: “If ye shall see the Son of God ascending where He was before,” But since He said, “The Son of man ascending where He was before,” surely the Son of man was not in heaven before the time when He began to have a being on earth? Here, indeed, He said, “where He was before,” just as if He were not there at this time when He spoke these words. But in another place He says, “No man has ascended into heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.”(2) He said not “was,” but, saith He, “the Son of man who is in heaven.” He was speaking on earth, and He declared Himself to be in heaven.

Specifically, he is leading to the point that there was never a time when the son of man was not in heaven, because there was never a time when the person of the word was not also the person Jesus Christ.

And yet He did not speak thus: “No man hath ascended into heaven but He that came down from heaven,”

the Son of God, “who is in heaven.”

Whither tends it, but to make us understand that which even in the former discourse I commended to your minds,

my beloved, that Christ, both God and man, is one person, not two persons,

lest our faith be not a trinity, but a quaternity?

**Christ, therefore, is one;

the Word,
soul
and flesh,
one Christ;

the Son of God and Son of man, one Christ;

Son of God always,
Son of man in time,
yet one Christ in regard to unity of person.**

In heaven He was when He spoke on earth.

He was Son of man in heaven in that manner in which He was Son of God on earth;

Son of God on earth in the flesh which He took, Son of man in heaven in the unity of person.

The inseparable unity of flesh and spirit here is important to note.

1. What is it, then, that He adds?

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.”

Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know),

O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing,

whilst Thou hast said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him?”

Or does life profit nothing?

And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Thy flesh?

Then what means “the flesh profiteth nothing”?

The question followed by the answer:

It profiteth nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it.

They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles;

not as when it is quickened by the Spirit.

Wherefore it is said that “the flesh profiteth nothing,”

in the same manner as it is said that “knowledge puffeth up.”

Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge?

Far from it! And what means “Knowledge puffeth up”? Knowledge alone, without charity.

Therefore he added, “but charity edifieth.”(3)

Therefore add thou to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity.

So also here, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” only when alone.

Let the Spirit be added to the flesh,

as charity is added to knowledge, and it profiteth very much.

For if the flesh profiled nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us.

If through the flesh Christ has greatly profiled us, does the flesh profit nothing?

But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation.

Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was.

The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing?

If the apostles’ flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord’s flesh should have profiled us nothing?

For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh?

Whence should writing come to us?

All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ.

Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,” as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

So for Augustine, the flesh and the spirit are inseperable. THe flesh alone is useless without the spirit.

Continued…

 

[utunumsint]

Bearing in mind Augustine’s previous points:

1-That the hypostatic union is one of a human body and soul united in the person of Christ who is the word… (paragraph 4
2-That flesh is useless only in so far as it is without the spirit, (paragraph 5)

He has this to say:

1. Hence “the words,” saith He, “which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.”

For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us

by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us.

But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple.

Thus the means by which we enter into the lord is by means of his body and blood for the following purpose:

But that we may be His members, unity joins us together.

And what but love can effect that unity should join us together?

And the love of God, whence is it?

Ask the apostle: “The love of God,” saith he, “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us.”(4)

Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickeneth,” for it is the Spirit that makes living members.

It is the spirit that effects this unity of body. However, the spirit can only be contained in one’s body, as he says here:

Nor does the Spirit make any members to be living except such as it finds in the body, which also the Spirit itself quickens.

One must first be incorporated into the body, before the Spirit can quicken.

For the Spirit which is in thee, O man, by which it consists that thou art a man,
does it quicken a member which it finds separated from thy flesh?

I call thy soul thy spirit. Thy soul quickeneth only the members which are in thy flesh;

if thou takest one away, it is no longer quickened by thy soul,

because it is not joined to the unity of thy body.

Separate one’s spirit from one’s body, and a man is dead. So to with the Eucharist.

These things are said to make us love unity and fear separation.

For there is nothing that a Christian ought to dread so much as to be separated from Christ’s body.

For if he is separated from Christ’s body, he is not a member of Christ;
if he is not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by the Spirit of Christ.

“But if any man,” saith the apostle, “have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”(1)

“It is the Spirit,” then, "that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us life through the our communion in the Eucharist.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

What follows from this understanding, according to Augustine, is that a person who is a heretic or in a state of mortal sin can partake sacramentally of the Eucharist, but the participation would be only in the body, and not the spirit.

This is how Judas could participate in the Eucharist at the last supper. Augustine also believed that Judas’ betrayal occured at the time of John 6, and he point to this again when he describes Judas’ behaviour at the last supper. Satan only entered him after he took the Eucharist.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Hello Joe, Yes, there is, if we look at what Augustine’s had to say on that matter. OCD Bk III:

At Paragraph 13 Augustine had written:

**Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, 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. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.

14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative.

Please note that for Augustine:

a) The sign was one thing and what it signified was another thing. “…to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage…” A sign cannot signify itself, it can only be itself and signify something else…

b) after referencing the “the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord” he immediately warns that “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” and if that wasn’t clear enough he then specifies that that rule in question guards against “taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal”!

And? Augustine defined it as: “For a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself…” OCD Bk II c 1. Later in that book he states “…and in the sacrament of His body and blood He signified His will through the sense of taste…”

Again, the sign is one thing and the thing it signifies it another thing,Augustine does not contemplate that the Eucharistic bread could be both a symbol of Christ’s body and also be Christ’s body.

This is true, but the weakness that the people in John 6 displayed, was to take Jesus’ words litterally, in the sense that he was going to chop up his body and distribute it to them right there and then. He criticises them for not believing first so that they could later understand, having rather used their own human understanding of his words and rejecting what he said out of hand. They should have understood, like the other disciples, that what Jesus was saying was a profound mystery.

1. And now addressing the few that remained: “Then said Jesus to the
   twelve” (namely, those twelve who remained), “Will ye also,” said He, “go
   away?” Not even Judas departed. But it was already manifest to the Lord why
   he remained: to us he was made manifest afterwards. Peter answered in
   behalf of all, one for many, unity for the collective whole: “Then Simon
   Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go?” Thou drivest us from Thee;
   give us Thy other self. “To whom shall we go?” If we abandon Thee, to whom
   shall we go? “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” See how Peter, by the
   gift of God and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, understood Him. How other
   than because he believed? “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” For Thou
   hast eternal life in the ministration of Thy body and blood. “And we have
   believed and have known.” Not have known and believed, but “believed and
   known.” For we believed in order to know; for if we wanted to know first,
   and then to believe, we should not be able either to know or to believe
   What have we believed and known? “That Thou art Christ, the Son of God;”
   that is, that Thou art that very eternal life, and that Thou givest in Thy
   flesh and blood only that which Thou art.

The flesh is a sign that alone gives nothing (it is just matter), but provides a link to the Spirit which alone gives life.

God bless,
Ut