S
SPH1
Guest
And no doubt this is more than what your current group believes, even under your spin on Augustine. So we can say that Augustine and other Fathers rejected your view?
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, Augustine pretty clearly did not take the approach of contemporary Catholic apologists to John 6–i.e., the argument that Jesus was asking them to “literally” eat His flesh, because otherwise He wouldn’t have let them walk away under a misunderstanding. Clearly Augustine does not think that Jesus is speaking literally. I do not think that this constitutes a refutation of transubstantiation, but it does contradict the overly literal interpretation of transubstantiation which many Catholics seem to hold.
Edwin
M
mgrfin
Guest
And just what is this overly literal interpretation of transubstantiation which many Catholics seem to hold?
peace
mgrfin
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, I should just have said “a literal interpretation,” by which I mean a literal interpretation with no qualification. The bread becomes the Body and the wine becomes the Blood, even though they don’t look like it. The nuances of substance vs. accidents are lost. Aquinas’s statement that the Body and Blood are not present locally, and exist in their proper dimensions only in heaven, are lost. Anyone (certainly any Protestant) reading what most devout, conservative Catholics say about the Eucharist would understand the appearances of bread and wine to be mere illusion. The use of John 6 in a manner that flatly contradicts St. Augustine is an example of this–traditional Catholic theology holds that the “Capernaites” held to a mistaken understanding of the Eucharist (that is why the term was applied to the heresy of an overly “fleshly” interpretation), but Catholic apologists routinely claim that they understood Jesus perfectly well and that is why they turned away. This amounts to a denial that “Capernaism” is really a heresy, even though traditional Catholic theology says that it is.
Ediwn
J
JaneFrances
Guest
I can not recall Augustine making that specific apologetic case. However, he does address the John 6 exodus in his Exposition on Psalm 99. In it he writes:
In this explanation, Augustine reiterates the argument that those who walked away did so because they thought Jesus was speaking “carnally.” This is not an indictment of the literal sense. It is a commentary discerning a mystical truth versus a reasonable misunderstanding.
I disagree. It isn’t so clear. Comparatively, I think placing this text within the framwork of Augustine’s other work would strongly suggest that he DID accept a literal interpretation of John 6 as well as a figurative.
The bottom line is that Augustine’s works are infamously unsatisfactory to make exclusive statements regarding his theology on the Eucharist (among other key doctrines). You simply can’t say, “He did not think Jesus was speaking literally.” Because he doesn’t say that. Instead, you infer this from a handful of texts and a systematic theology which supports that position. Likewise, Catholic theology looks to Augustine for support and is equally satisfied.
Me neither.
I don’t know what “overly literal” means. And I’m being serious. It either is literal or it isn’t.
I think Augustine’s distinction could be described as “carnal” versus “literal” rather than the typical “literal” versus “symbolic” duel.
How else are we to understand his formulations regarding adoration and consecration?
M
mgrfin
Guest
The decrees and canons of the Council of Trent contain the whole of the Church’s defined, dogmatic teaching on the Sacrifice of the Mass. No one could be a Catholic who knowingly denies any of the doctrinal points contained in Session XIII. When the bread and wine are duly and validly consecrated there is truly, really and substantially present the living Christ, the same Christ as was born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered and died for us, and now sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. Trent tell us “For these things are not mutually repugnant, that our Saviour himself always sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, according to his natural mode of existing, and that nevertheless he is in many other places sacramentally present, by a manner of existing which, though we can hardly express it in words, we can yet conceive, our understanding being enlightened by faith, and ought most firmly to believe to be possible to God”.
When it comes to this Doctrine, there is no such thing as ‘overly literal interpretation’, or “Conservative Catholics”. When I attend Mass, or visit the Blessed Sacrament, I am not concerned with what Protestants believe or don’t believe – they are not my problem. As for “Capernates”, frankly I don’t know who they are, (and have not been able to find out). I make no apology for any of this, and avoid anything which tends to lessen our faith in this ineffable Sacrament.
Yes, outside of what Trent has defined for us, Dominicans, Redemptorists, Jesuits et al have had lots of time on their hands to discuss non-essential issues. They are entitled to their scholarship, and study. To me, it doesn’t add one iota of our true faith in the Eucharist.
peace,
mgrfin
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Likewise, I think many Protestants would consider St. Augustine’s work on consecration on par with magic and his understanding of adoration equivolent to idolatry. It doesn’t make it so. “Illusion” is a specific term which we understand within a certain context. This context does not apply to God. What He speaks becomes so, regardless of how we perceive it.
Thus, we understand with spiritual capacity what we can not perceive with natural ability.
I agree that traditional Catholic theology does require those who left to be mistaken. However, you are once again assuming a “literal” versus “symbolic” distinction and ignoring the possiblity of a “fleshly” (or carnal) versus “literal” distinction.
I disagree that Catholic theology, in spite of certain Catholic apologists, requires that those who walked away “understood Jesus perfectly well.” I think the point is that they heard his words, considered them within a carnal context, and misunderstood. St. Augustine clarifies: “some understood foolishly [misunderstood]. . .and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His body to give them.”
Obviously this was not the case. They failed to appreciate God’s power to burn bushes without consuming them. Thus, they failed to see how Christ could still literally mean “Eat my flesh” and yet not butcher himself in the process. Such is the mystery of the Eucharist.
M
mgrfin
Guest
You are dueling with words. I believe Augustine believed in the Real Presence, as we believe in it today. He didn’t have the scholastic language as it is used at Trent. But he believed in Christ being truly, really, and substantially present in the accidents of the Bread and Wine.
peace
mgrfin
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
This portrays Jesus as a trickster, some guy in a white suit playing Wheel of Fortune. These were no dupes. And Jesus was no trickster. They were disciples. He was giving them an opportunity to make a world changing choice in their lives. For them to exercise choice, they had to have information. Jesus gave them that information. Not only in the words he used but in His Real Presence. The disciples understood clearly what he was saying before they walked away. They chose.
Let us remember that Jesus was the Sacrifical Lamb. This harkens back to Passover. For the children to be delivered from the Angel of Death, they had to eat the Lamb.
I think I posted a link to Scott Hahn’s Fourth Cup. He explains this clearly.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
I’m sorry you think I’m dueling with words. This was not my intention. Instead, I’m trying to acknowledge that Augustine actually did have a dualistic understanding of the Scriptures pertaining to the Eucharist. This understanding, perfectly in line with Catholic doctrine, allows for both literal and figurative senses in reference to the Scriptural texts.
I agree, as I think I have well established thus far, that Augustine believed in the Real Presence, especially in light of his corollary teachings on Eucharistic adoration and liturgical consecration.
I do not think it is necessary to deny certain aspects of Augustine’s teaching in order to bolster the Catholic position. He was Catholic, beyond a doubt, and most seemingly divergent thoughts, which some non-Catholics use against Catholic theology, can actually be reconciled within the context of his whole body of work.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
First, I don’t think the whole theology of the Real Presence hinges on whether or not every single disciple who walked away fully understood the concept they rejected. By walking away they rejected Christ. Whatever they believed, they did not believe that He had the power to accomplish what He claimed and so they left without the faith required to accept Christ’s hard saying.
Yes, they had a choice! Yes, it was an informed choice. Those who believed He was the Son of God had all the information they needed to choose to believe His teaching. But, as Augustine says, they “understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His body to give them.” This was clearly not the case, so anyone who may have understood Christ in this way was clearly mistaken.
I don’t think it is profitable to argue whether or not they “understood clearly.” I imagine, as with any large group, there were gradations of understanding.
But, I will say that taking into account Jesus’ address to the Twelve and Peter’s response, following the exodus of John 6:66, the case can be made that perhaps even the Twelve remained with Christ based on an act of faith in Him rather than a clear understanding of the Eucharistic concept.
On that philosophical note, much the same can be said about our contemporary understanding of the Eucharist. Much of what we accept about Christ’s Eucharistic Body and Blood is not based on a full understanding. As I catechize my young children, this is particularly relevant. There are things about the Eucharist which will remain a holy mystery, understood only by faith.
Augustine, however, is very clear about what we can understand: “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, 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.”
Prior to the Last Supper passover meal, it would have been quite unlikely that the Apostles, much less the throngs of disciples, could have understood the Eucharist in this way. At the very least, until Palm Sunday, these same Apostles and disciples were rallying for a King with might and earthly majesty, not One dying as a criminal on a Cross. There is no way that the disciples could have had a clear, analytical understanding of the Eucharist apart from the Upper Room. At the very least, it becomes a matter of chronology.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
I also want to point out that I think my understanding, as explained in my previous post on this topic, is very much in line with Hahn’s teaching (and Augustine’s, for that matter). Hahn says, in the transcript of The Fourth Cup:
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
OK. I buy this. Whatever time frame we are talking about – before or after the Resurrection – Jesus could not let them walk away without them fully understanding the Real Presence. To do so would be to deny them free will.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
OK. However, we are leaving out one thing. Even though some may have thought that Jesus was telling them to jump on Him and gnaw the flesh off his bones that instant – or not – they still had the Real Presence which was informing them. Those who walked away chose having been fully informed in the Presence of the Lord.
What they did is choose their own version of how things work. I will concede that it may have been true that the Resurrection and advent of the Holy Spirit might have swung the balance more in favour of them choosing to stay with Jesus. After all we worship the God of second chances.
S
savedsinner
Guest
I think one point that needs to be addressed in this thread is that St. Augustine was a faithful Catholic priest, he was not infallible, but he was faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. (Unlike a certain Augustinian Monk some 1,100 years later)
He believed in the real presence, but to say that he did not believe in transubstantiation, but believed in another form of a real presence is a bit misleading.
First, transubstantiation wouldn’t be fully defined for another 800 years or so after his death. (A Church father can’t be held to a teaching which in not fully defined until a later date.)
Second, I believe that if transubstantiation had been defined during his lifetime, he would have held to that teaching.
Why do I say that he would have held to the Catholic teaching above what he initially believed?
Because of two of his comments.
He believed in the real presence, but to say that he did not believe in transubstantiation, but believed in another form of a real presence is a bit misleading.
First, transubstantiation wouldn’t be fully defined for another 800 years or so after his death. (A Church father can’t be held to a teaching which in not fully defined until a later date.)
Second, I believe that if transubstantiation had been defined during his lifetime, he would have held to that teaching.
Why do I say that he would have held to the Catholic teaching above what he initially believed?
Because of two of his comments.
- “On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.” St. Augustine in his letter to St. Jerome
- “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” St Augustine Sermon 131:10
M
mgrfin
Guest
St. Augustine believed in the Real Presence, he just didn’t have the tools yet to call it Transubstantiation. To say he didn’t believe in Transubstantiation is false.
mgrfin
C
Contarini
Guest
But Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem did speak in terms of a “metabole” or transformation of the bread into the Body of Christ. This is basically transubstantiation. Augustine’s sign/signified language is quite different, although I agree that it is not necessarily contradictory.
It is clear, however, that Augustine did not think that unbelievers ate the Body of Christ when they received the Eucharist–and indeed it seems that very few before the 13th century thought this.
Edwin
M
mgrfin
Guest
So what you are saying is that they didn’t believe in the Real Presence, more like Luther’s belief in faith of believers in the Eucharist? Till the 13th Century. So, Thomas just created this doctrine on his own?
mgrfin
C
Contarini
Guest
Obviously I don’t think that they didn’t believe in the Real Presence. And you are seriously misinformed about Luther–Luther insisted very dogmatically that unbelievers did receive the Body and Blood of Christ. In some ways Luther’s view was more literalistic than the developed Catholic position, let alone the position I’m describing.
Not quite. According to Gary Macy, who has studied early scholastic Eucharist theology in depth, most of the pre-Thomistic figures agreed that reception of the reality of any sacrament was dependent on faith. I have not read Macy’s monograph on the subject (but I have read an article by Macy summarizing the argument of the monograph, and also his broader book *The Banquet’s Wisdom, *which definitely has a theological agenda you would disagree with; however, even if his generalizations are dubious, there is no reason to doubt his specific affirmations about texts that he has studied in detail), much less the primary texts themselves. But Macy is a reputable scholar, even if you would consider him a liberal apostate or whatever. Macy does not say exactly that St. Thomas invented the doctrine on his own, but he thinks that Aquinas’s metaphysical presuppositions push him toward a more “realist” view than that held by earlier scholastics. Note that these theologians did not, according to Macy, think that sin prevented a person from receiving the Body and Blood, only unbelief.
Macy may be full of it for all I know, but when I read him a few years back I thought the argument (on that specific subject) was convincing.
Edwin
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Aside from Macy’s assessments, don’t you think it more accurate to say that the pre-Thomist commentators believed rather that the full efficacy of any sacrament was realized by faith? I say this in contrast to your statement that they “agreed that reception of the reality of any sacrament was dependent on faith.” The former statement having more to do with the sacramental effectiveness of a sacrament rather than the “reality of the sacrament.”
After all, the sacraments are primarily the work of God, not of ourselves. Thus, while we participate and that participation is important and effective, it does not define the reality of any work of God.
While I haven’t worked it out fully or done the adequate research to substantiate this argument, I think, contemporary Catholic theology could assimilate the statement about efficacy rather than reality. That is to say, one may recieve the Eucharist unbelieving and unworthily and suffer consequences which are not effects of grace, yet not affect the nature (reality) of the Sacrament. While, on the other hand, one may recieve the Eucharist in faith and with a clear conscience and benefit fully from the grace inherent in the sacrament.
The same could go for Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and the Sacrament of the Sick. One’s preparedness and faith in recieving each sacrament contributes to the full effects of grace inherent to each sacrament, but does not affect the reality of the particular sacrament.
Do you think this is a more accurate articulation of the pre-Thomist view of the Sacraments in general?
- Status