The Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Way
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most, in my experience, do not make any real effort to follow the teachings of St. Augustine.

Other passages from St. Augustine regarding the Blessed Sacrament:

The middle passage, saying that Christians are required to worship the Eucharist with adoration, rules out the idea that St. Augustine is merely speaking figuratively.
Augustine may have believed in a Real Presence, but it does not mean it was transubstantiation. Let’s look at the rest of the middle passage that you did not include.
Yet here it says, “fall down before His footstool:” and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, “The earth is My footstool.” I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? and the Scripture tells me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.”…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.” Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.
(Enerations, Psalm 99, Paragraph 8)
newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm

Some other statements from Augustine…
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, you 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.
(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Augustine uses John 6 as the example of when something is to be taken figuratively.
Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him.** For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats;** he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm
“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

(to be continued)
 
(continued)
And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers…For my flesh, says He, is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. For while by meat and drink men seek to attain to this, neither to hunger nor thirst, there is nothing that truly affords this, except this meat and drink, which does render them by whom it is taken immortal and incorruptible; that is, the very fellowship of the saints, where will be peace and unity, full and perfect… In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraphs 15, 17, &18)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

This seems to reflect a receptionist view.
You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,” although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.
(Letters, Number 98, Paragraph 9
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm
 
Augustine may have believed in a Real Presence, but it does not mean it was transubstantiation. Let’s look at the rest of the middle passage that you did not include.
If you think this passage about Psalm 99 departs from Catholic theology, I can only guess it’s because you misunderstand Catholic theology on some basic level. This is what we have always believed and still believe. 🤷
 
What is the difference between the Real Presence and transubstantiation?
From the Council of Trent.
CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

This attempts to define what happens to the bread and wine using Aristotelian metaphysics. You can believe that Christ is present in a real way without the whole substance of the bread and wine being converted to Christ. The Orthodox, and others, believe in the Real Presence but do not accept transubstantiation. Instead of leaving the Real Presence as a mystery, the Catholic Church over-defines what happens.
 
From the Council of Trent.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

This attempts to define what happens to the bread and wine using Aristotelian metaphysics. You can believe that Christ is present in a real way without the whole substance of the bread and wine being converted to Christ. The Orthodox, and others, believe in the Real Presence but do not accept transubstantiation. Instead of leaving the Real Presence as a mystery, the Catholic Church over-defines what happens.
The Early Church did not believe that they were kneeling down to worship bread and wine, with or without Jesus in or with it. They believed that there was no more bread and wine, and that it was Jesus alone.

Transubstantiation is the best explanation we have so far of what’s going on there. The fact that the Orthodox don’t attempt to explain it doesn’t mean that they hold to a symbolic view, or of a consubstantial view, since they, too, kneel down to worship it as Christ and Christ alone.
 
This attempts to define what happens to the bread and wine using Aristotelian metaphysics. You can believe that Christ is present in a real way without the whole substance of the bread and wine being converted to Christ. The Orthodox, and others, believe in the Real Presence but do not accept transubstantiation. Instead of leaving the Real Presence as a mystery, the Catholic Church over-defines what happens.
The OP said nothing about transubstantiation, so I’ll assume you agree with it.
 
If you think this passage about Psalm 99 departs from Catholic theology, I can only guess it’s because you misunderstand Catholic theology on some basic level. This is what we have always believed and still believe. 🤷
To understand what Augustine is saying you must also look what he says elsewhere. In the quotes given he refers to the bread and wine having to bear some resemblance to the reality. He refers to the elements as figures and states that Christ is eaten by believing in Him rather than with the teeth. In his comments on Psalm 99, Augustine says that Jesus tells the Apostles they are not eating this body that they saw or drinking the blood which would be poured forth.

This does not seem in accord with Trent which said:
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

Combined with the definition of transubstantiation, this indicates that the Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist is the actual body seen and blood poured forth under the appearance of bread and wine.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
The OP said nothing about transubstantiation, so I’ll assume you agree with it.
I do not accept transubstantiation as the necessary method by which the Real Presence takes place. I accept it as a mystery but have more of a receptionist view.
 
The Early Church did not believe that they were kneeling down to worship bread and wine, with or without Jesus in or with it. They believed that there was no more bread and wine, and that it was Jesus alone.
It is not clear that the early church believed the was no more bread or wine.

Irenaeus wrote of the Eucharist consisting of two realities.
Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. 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.
(Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 18, Paragraph 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

Justin Martyr, while referring to the elements as the body and blood of Christ in Chapter LXVI of his First Apology, still refers to the deacons as distributing bread and wine to the people and carrying it to those absent.
There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
(The First Apology, Chapter LXV)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxv.html

Clement of Alexandria refers to Jesus speaking in symbols and metaphors.
. Elsewhere the Lord, **in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat 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,Cof 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. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed.
(The Instructor 1:6)
newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

In another place he indicates Jesus was speaking in figures.
In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, "Take, drink: this is my blood"the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word "shed for many, for the remission of sins"the holy stream of gladness.
(The Instructor 2:2)
newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

Theodret indicates that even after consecration the elements are not deprived of their own nature.
You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality.
(Dialogues, 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

(to be continued)
 
(continued)

Eusebius of Caesarea speaks of Jesus giving the disciples symbols.
He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and** was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body**, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk.” This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, “Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.”
(Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 8, 380b)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.htm
." He plainly teaches that in place of the ancient sacrifices and whole burnt-offerings the incarnate presence of Christ that was prepared was offered. And this very thing He proclaims to his Church as a great mystery expressed with prophetic voice in the volume of the book. As** we have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant**
(Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, 37b)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

Tertullian refers to Jesus using figures and that we devour Him with the ear and ruminate on Him with the understanding.
He says, it is true, that “the flesh profits 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 quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits 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 hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has 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 appellation; 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 comes 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.
(On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37)
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

He also speaks of the bread as representing Jesus’ body.
Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the “beggarly elements” of the Creator
.
(Against Marcion, Book 1, Chapter 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/03121.htm

Pope Gelasius say the bread and wine don’t lose their substance or nature.
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.
(Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, 95)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

Ephraim the Syrian seems to take a receptionist view. It is the body of Christ to those who believe but ordinary bread to others.
Our Lord Jesus took bread in his hands, plain bread at the beginning, and blessed it, made the sign of the cross over it and sanctified it in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit, and he broke and distributed it in morsels to his disciples in his kindness. He called the bread his living body, and he filled it with himself and with his Spirit. He stretched forth his hand and gave them the bread that his right hand had sanctified. Do not regard as bread what I have given you now…eat it, and do not disdain its crumbs. For this bread that I have sanctified is my body. Its least crumb sanctifies thousands of thousands, and it is capable of giving life to all who eat it. Take, eat in faith, doubting not at all that this is my body. And he who eats it in faith eats it in fire and the Spirit. If anyone doubts and eats it, it is plain bread to him. He who believes and eats the bread sanctified in my name, if he is pure; if he is a sinner, he will be forgiven. He, however, who despises it or spurns it, he may be sure that he is insulting the Son, who has called the bread his body and truly made it so. Receive of it, eat of it, all of you, and eat in it the Holy Spirit, for it is truly my body, and he who eats it will live forever.
(Memra for the Fifth Day of the Great Week (Holy Thursday), Sermon 4) Joel C. Elowsky, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament IVa John 1-10, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 236.)
 
We don’t disagree that the bread and wine are signifiers - we just don’t say that they are merely signifiers. All of your sources agreed that we receive Christ in the Eucharist - that it is not merely a symbolic representation. 🙂
 
I believe that we receive Christ in the Eucharist. I also believe that transubstantiation is an unnecessary definition of how it happens. I hold a receptionist view that those who believe receive Christ but to others they are just ordinary bread and wine. The sources I quote may support the Real Presence but I don’t think they take a further step to transubstantiation. The original post suggests that, unless we accept this Catholic doctrine, we are not in accord with the teaching of Augustine. I don’t agree with that premise.

I also believe that God will work His will in the Eucharist, whatever we believe and whether we can explain it or not.
 
Sy,

I think, too, in fairness to the truth, that we ought to point out that those quotes from the Church fathers need to be studied in context, using critical editions, bolstered by authentic scholarship.

Don’t you agree?

VC
 
I believe that we receive Christ in the Eucharist.
I also believe that transubstantiation is an unnecessary definition of how it happens.
It’s not specifically required for belief, I don’t think - we’re just required to believe that we receive Christ in the Eucharist. A child of seven is not expected to explain what Transubstantiation is - she only has to explain that we receive Jesus in Holy Communion.
I hold a receptionist view that those who believe receive Christ but to others they are just ordinary bread and wine.
:confused: How does this compute? Either it is, or it isn’t. It’s not something you can change by having feelings about it one way or the other, any more than you can change the color of the sky or the law of gravity with your mood.
The sources I quote may support the Real Presence but I don’t think they take a further step to transubstantiation. The original post suggests that, unless we accept this Catholic doctrine, we are not in accord with the teaching of Augustine. I don’t agree with that premise.
St. Augustine laid the groundwork - the foundation - for the later understanding of Transubstantiation. So his belief certainly supports it, in more ways than one. 🙂
I also believe that God will work His will in the Eucharist, whatever we believe and whether we can explain it or not.
That is indisputable. 👍
 
Sy,

I think, too, in fairness to the truth, that we ought to point out that those quotes from the Church fathers need to be studied in context, using critical editions, bolstered by authentic scholarship.

Don’t you agree?

VC
I agree and, if you think I have taken them out of context please show me how. I think, however, that other things they may say should be viewed with the quotes I cited in mind as well.

My view on the early church fathers in general is that in many areas they encompass a wide spectrum of views and treat them as orthodox. This includes a great many Protestant views. While they may not necessarily be dominant, they were still viewed as within orthodox Christianity. In later times different opinions were excluded as things became over-defined. I believe both Catholics and Protestants have done this.
 
It’s not specifically required for belief, I don’t think - we’re just required to believe that we receive Christ in the Eucharist. A child of seven is not expected to explain what Transubstantiation is - she only has to explain that we receive Jesus in Holy Communion.
Trent declared those who do not believe transubstantiation are anathema.
:confused: How does this compute? Either it is, or it isn’t. It’s not something you can change by having feelings about it one way or the other, any more than you can change the color of the sky or the law of gravity with your mood.
I don’t think we can limit God. He is not bound by either or the way we are. It can become Christ to those who believe but not those who don’t believe. After all, what is impossible for man is possible with God.
 
Trent declared those who do not believe transubstantiation are anathema.
Actually, the anathema is on those who doubt that the Eucharist is really Jesus. Here is the actual text:
CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
They don’t limit the possibility of a better explanation of how this happens coming along.
I don’t think we can limit God. He is not bound by either or the way we are. It can become Christ to those who believe but not those who don’t believe. After all, what is impossible for man is possible with God.
This makes it sound like the recipient is doing the Consecration (or not), instead of the priest. I don’t think any of the Early Fathers would have agreed with that idea.
 
Instead of leaving the Real Presence as a mystery, the Catholic Church over-defines what happens.
The mystery is not at all removed by saying “This is Jesus, the whole Jesus, and nothing but Jesus.”
To understand what Augustine is saying you must also look what he says elsewhere.
I agree, and I think that’s the fatal flaw with your position. 🙂
In the quotes given he refers to the bread and wine having to bear some resemblance to the reality.
Yes.
He refers to the elements as figures
Actually, Augustine says Jesus’ words are “a figure,” in other words, Jesus is not speaking on a natural level. The passage from On Christian Doctrine is about the interpretation of biblical commands. When a command appears to encourage an act that is morally wrong, Augustine writes, the passage is not to be interpreted in a merely natural way. It is appropriate that Augustine’s example here comes from the Gospel of John, in which Jesus and his interlocutors are often speaking on different levels. If I were choosing another example, I would choose John 3:4, where Nicodemus erroneously thinks Jesus is speaking in a natural manner, and asks how an old man can return to the womb. In reality, Jesus is speaking on another level: people must be “born again” not naturally, but sacramentally. Augustine, as we’ve seen, uses the example of John 6. Augustine points out that Jesus is not asking his immediate audience to consume him naturally, e.g. by chomping off a bit of his arm. This would be a crime, namely cannibalism. As in John 3, Jesus is not speaking sacramentally. Jesus is saying is that Christians should participate in the suffering of the Lord. This is in perfect agreement with what Catholics have always believed, that Jesus is to be offered and consumed in an “an unbloody and sacramental manner,” rather than a natural manner.
and states that Christ is eaten by believing in Him rather than with the teeth.
Based on the surrounding text, and especially the reference to 1Corinthians 11 that immediately follows, he is expressing that the benefits the Sacrament are not conferred unless one receives worthily. As the Catechism puts it, only with the requisite disposition do we actually receive communion when receiving the Eucharist; otherwise we eat and drink judgment on ourselves.
In his comments on Psalm 99, Augustine says that Jesus tells the Apostles they are not eating this body that they saw or drinking the blood which would be poured forth.
Right, we do not receive the body and blood of Jesus naturally, as if by chewing on his toes, but sacramentally.
This does not seem in accord with Trent
I don’t see any conflict at all.
the Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist is the actual body seen and blood poured forth
We believe that we receive the glorified body, in a sacramental rather than natural manner. From everything I’ve seen in Augustine, he agrees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top