The Real Presence: Augustine

[Contarini]

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?

No. That’s uncontroversial. We are talking about receiving the actual Body and Blood rather than simply the sign of the same. The argument apparently was that because it was a sacramental presence it was accessible only to faith–which did not mean that it wasn’t really there.

Sorry for not being clearer–by “reality” I meant something quite specific, the “res” of the sacrament as opposed to the “signum.” The developed Catholic view is that anyone (even an animal!) who receives the signum receives the res. If Macy is right, this was not the common view before the 13th century. However, Macy could be wrong–I wouldn’t blame you for being reluctant to accept so dramatic an argument on the word of one scholar with an agenda that would bias him toward that conclusion (particularly as transmitted by someone who also has a bias toward a broader definition of the Real Presence!).

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

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

“Full of it”? My, my, how you go on, Edwin. Macy was full of it.
As though these Catholics weren’t aware of 1 Cor 10:16.

I am not so misinformed about Luther. Out of deference to you, I am just being nicer about it.

Salve Regina

Mgrfin

And I will put enmities between thee and the
Woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush
Thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Gen. 3:15

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I find this quote by Augustine rather compelling, it seems drive toward the spiritual end!

“Why preparest thou the teeth and the belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.”1023

1023 Tract. in Joh. 25: “Quid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti.” Comp. Tract. 26: “Qui non manet in Christo, nec manducat carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem licet premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi.”

 

[Contarini]

“Full of it”? My, my, how you go on, Edwin. Macy was full of it.

I’m really baffled. Clearly you have seriously misunderstood me, and I don’t see how it’s my fault. Macy is my source for questioning whether pre-Thomistic scholastic theologians believed that unbelievers receive the Body and Blood. My admission that he might be full of it (not a claim that he is) is a concession due to the fact that he’s a liberal Catholic with a clear agenda to break down the dogmatism of the traditional Catholic position.

As though these Catholics weren’t aware of 1 Cor 10:16.

1 Cor. 10:16 does not say that unbelievers receive the Body and Blood. Quite the contrary, it is clearly speaking of the bread that “we”–that is, believers–break. People can be aware of passages without agreeing with your interpretation of them, you know!

I am not so misinformed about Luther. Out of deference to you, I am just being nicer about it.

Unless you said something you did not mean, you are very misinformed about Luther. And I’m a lot more interested in your being accurate than in your being “nice.” Fairness is the best way to be nice on a forum like this. I have no problem with being told when I am wrong, and I have no problem with telling other people when they are wrong.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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

You’ve got no historical proof for your assertions!

 

[mgrfin]

1 Cor. 10:16 does not say that unbelievers receive the Body and Blood. Quite the contrary, it is clearly speaking of the bread that “we”–that is, believers–break. People can be aware of passages without agreeing with your interpretation of them, you know!

Edwin

The is the first time in all my generations of life that I heard someone interprete the ‘we’ of Corinthians to mean believers.
Ex opere operato was a Scholatic term, but it does not mean that the Catholic Church from the beginning did not believe in the Real presence - regardless of who received it, it was still the Body and Blood of the Lord.

I do make 'a posterior judgments that if a doctrine we believe now, I say it was always believed - that it was part of the deposit of faith. That goes along with the territory.

Youre right. I don’t know Macy, but if he a ‘catholic’ who is trying to show that the Church taught and believed that believers saw the Eucharist as theirs only, namely, the ‘we’ as you say in Corinthians is only for Catholics, he is sadly mistaken Non-believers, according to Macy did not receive as we.

If that is his position, I’d send Macy back to his books to find the truth.

peace
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

You’ve got no historical proof for your assertions!

Of course I have proofs. What kind of apologist do you think I am?

St. Augustine didn’t use the term “Transubstantiation”. This is a Scholastic term, 800 years after his time. But he did believe in the Real Presence, without a doubt.

Try out these. Please keep an open mind.
Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. 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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
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 the Blood of Christ. … How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. … You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!' and you answer: Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth

peace,
mgrfin

Amen, Alleluia
Say it amen, again.
AMEN

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Of course I have proofs. What kind of apologist do you think I am?

St. Augustine didn’t use the term “Transubstantiation”. This is a Scholastic term, 800 years after his time. But he did believe in the Real Presence, without a doubt.

Try out these. Please keep an open mind.
Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. 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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
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 the Blood of Christ. … How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. … You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!' and you answer: Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth

peace,
mgrfin

Amen, Alleluia
Say it amen, again.
AMEN

I’ve spent the past hour looking for these sermons can you share where they are for context?

 

[mgrfin]

I’ve spent the past hour looking for these sermons can you share where they are for context?

I’m sorry about that. I just went to my Yahoo search and typed into St. Augustine on the Eucharist, and the site option was given.

heritage.villanova.edu/vu/mission/Eucharist/augustine.htm

Hopefully that will work.
I didn’t mean to send you off on a long chase.

peace
mgrfin

 

[francesco920]

Of course I have proofs. What kind of apologist do you think I am?

St. Augustine didn’t use the term “Transubstantiation”. This is a Scholastic term, 800 years after his time. But he did believe in the Real Presence, without a doubt.

Try out these. Please keep an open mind.
Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. 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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received. [How can it get clearer than this!?]

Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
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 the Blood of Christ. [Again, this is so clear. Thanks for finding this, mgrfin!]… How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. … You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!' and you answer: Amen!’ [Hmm…sounds familiar! ] Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth

peace,
mgrfin

Amen, Alleluia
Say it amen, again.
AMEN

AMEN! Great post! !

I think that shows clearly that Augustine did hold the Catholic view.

I have one more to add:**Chapter 4.—God Uses All Creatures as He Will, and Makes Visible Things for the Manifestation of Himself.**9. What, then, we have alleged by way of example of a single wise man, although of one still bearing a mortal body and still seeing only in part, may be allowably extended also to a family, where there is a society of such men, or to a city, or even to the whole world, if the chief rule and government of human affairs were in the hands of the wise, and of those who were piously and perfectly subject to God; but because this is not the case as yet (for it behoves us first to be exercised in this our pilgrimage after mortal fashion, and to be taught with stripes by force of gentleness and patience), let us turn our thoughts to that country itself that is above and heavenly, from which we here are pilgrims.continued…

 

[francesco920]

continued…For there the will of God, “who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming fire,” presiding among spirits which are joined in perfect peace and friendship, and combined in one will by a kind of spiritual fire of charity, as it were in an elevated and holy and secret seat, as in its own house and in its own temple, thence diffuses itself through all things by certain most perfectly ordered movements of the creature; first spiritual, then corporeal; and uses all according to the unchangeable pleasure of its own purpose, whether incorporeal things or things corporeal, whether rational or irrational spirits, whether good by His grace or evil through their own will. But as the more gross and inferior bodies are governed in due order by the more subtle and powerful ones, so all bodies are governed by the living spirit; and the living spirit devoid of reason, by the reasonable living spirit; and the reasonable living spirit that makes default and sins, by the living and reasonable spirit that is pious and just; and that by God Himself, and so the universal creature by its Creator, from whom and through whom and in whom it is also created and established. And so it comes to pass that the will of God is the first and the highest cause of all corporeal appearances and motions. For nothing is done visibly or sensibly, unless either by command or permission from the interior palace, invisible and intelligible, of the supreme Governor, according to the unspeakable justice of rewards and punishments, of favor and retribution, in that far-reaching and boundless commonwealth of the whole creature.continued…

 

[francesco920]

continued…10. If, therefore, the Apostle Paul, although he still bare the burden of the body, which is subject to corruption and presses down the soul, and although he still saw only in part and in an enigma, wishing to depart and be with Christ, and groaning within himself, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of his body, yet was able to preach the Lord Jesus Christ significantly, in one way by his tongue, in another by epistle, in another by the sacrament of His body and blood (since, certainly, we do not call either the tongue of the apostle, or the parchments, or the ink, or the significant sounds which his tongue uttered, or the alphabetical signs written on skins, the body and blood of Christ; but that only which we take of the fruits of the earth and consecrate by mystic prayer, and then receive duly to our spiritual health in memory of the passion of our Lord for us: and this, although it is brought by the hands of men to that visible form, yet is not sanctified to become so great a sacrament, except by the spirit of God working invisibly; since God works everything that is done in that work through corporeal movements, by setting in motion primarily the invisible things of His servants, whether the souls of men, or the services of hidden spirits subject to Himself): what wonder if also in the creature of heaven and earth, of sea and air, God works the sensible and visible things which He wills, in order to signify and manifest Himself in them, as He Himself knows it to be fitting, without any appearing of His very substance itself, whereby He is, which is altogether unchangeable, and more inwardly and secretly exalted than all spirits whom He has created?That’s the entirety of Chapter 4 of Book 3 of Augustine’s On the Holy Trinity.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/130103.htm

P.S. - sorry if somebody else has already posted this.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I’m sorry about that. I just went to my Yahoo search and typed into St. Augustine on the Eucharist, and the site option was given.

heritage.villanova.edu/vu/mission/Eucharist/augustine.htm

Hopefully that will work.
I didn’t mean to send you off on a long chase.

peace
mgrfin

Please don’t take offense to this but that link shows nothing, I would like to read St Augustine’s actual sermon (most are accessible), that post has quotes pieced together as 1 quote as evidenced by the (…)'s
I can’t seem to find St. Aug’s sermons beyond #147 online, though I know he has 300-400 still around…Any help would be great.
I still haven’t responded to what you actually are claiming from these selected few sentences because I prefer to see his meaning, I think it’s a fair request!

Though I think you are reading into it way more than is there, as evidenced by the St’s comment “**you **are the body”

 

[myfavoritmartin]

920,
What in there supports your POV?
Just curious.

 

[Contarini]

The is the first time in all my generations of life that I heard someone interprete the ‘we’ of Corinthians to mean believers.

What other “we” would it mean? Unbelievers do not celebrate the Eucharist (at least not professed unbelievers). My point is that it doesn’t say anything one way or the other about what happens if an unbeliever receives the Eucharist.

Ex opere operato was a Scholatic term, but it does not mean that the Catholic Church from the beginning did not believe in the Real presence - regardless of who received it, it was still the Body and Blood of the Lord.

As I understand Macy, this doesn’t really contradict ex opere operato. They did not deny that the bread and wine were really transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood. And a thoroughly wicked person with unformed faith could still receive the Body and Blood (to his or her condemnation). The point was that a sacrament is the sort of thing that is received by faith.

I do make 'a posterior judgments that if a doctrine we believe now, I say it was always believed - that it was part of the deposit of faith. That goes along with the territory.

As a matter of faith, that’s fine. As a matter of historical inquiry and discussion with non-Catholics, it’s worse than useless.

Youre right. I don’t know Macy, but if he a ‘catholic’ who is trying to show that the Church taught and believed that believers saw the Eucharist as theirs only, namely, the ‘we’ as you say in Corinthians is only for Catholics, he is sadly mistaken

Macy didn’t address that. I think that point is obvious–why would Paul speak of non-Christians celebrating the Eucharist? It makes no sense. (Never mind that the phrase “a koinonia in the body/blood of Christ” could easily mean that through the bread and wine believers share in the Body and Blood.) That wasn’t from Macy. What Macy said was that most early scholastics thought faith was necessary to receive the res and not just the signum. I trust him (provisionally) on this, although I am dubious of his larger project to argue that Catholics should adopt a broader understanding of the Real Presence, accepting various ways of talking about the mystery besides transubstantiation. (A Protestant colleague of mine cited Macy to me when I made the claim that Zwingli’s understanding of the Eucharist flatly contradicts the historic consensus of the Church.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Of course I have proofs. What kind of apologist do you think I am?

St. Augustine didn’t use the term “Transubstantiation”. This is a Scholastic term, 800 years after his time. But he did believe in the Real Presence, without a doubt.

Try out these. Please keep an open mind.
Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. 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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

I see no language of transformation here (though in all fairness the verb “to be” is used in the last sentence where our transformation is clearly in view). That for me is the key to a “metabolic” understanding (i.e., transubstantiation in its essentials, with or without the technical terminology). Saying that the Bread “is” the Body can mean a lot of things (sorry if that sounds like Clinton!). However, this language is certainly compatible with transubstantiation and, taken on its own, would suggest a metabolic view–I’m just not sure it’s strong enough to counterbalance what Augustine says elsewhere. (It is of course also possible that Augustine changed his mind over time–I don’t know how this sermon compares chronologically to the John commentary and De Doctrina.)

Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
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 the Blood of Christ. … How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. … You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!' and you answer: Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth

This is much more helpful, given the contrast between vision and faith reminiscent of the Eucharistic hymns of St. Thomas. However, I note the corporeal/spiritual distinction. Whether this contradicts transubstantiation I’m not sure–I rather think not. A final note: in both sermons Augustine speaks of our being the Body (“you are what you have received”). But clearly no one claims that we are transubstantiated (in the technical sense) into Christ’s . Yet we are not the Body in a purely metaphorical sense either (though many Protestants may think so). I would argue that for Augustine it’s the same with the Eucharist. It’s clearly not literal, given his comments on John and in De Doctrina. But it’s not purely figurative either. It’s a spiritual reality. Again, I’m not sure that actually contradicts transubstantiation, though by and large St. Thomas and the later Catholic tradition generally represents a more realistic and less spiritualizing approach to the Faith as a whole (sometimes explained in terms of Aristotle vs. Plato).

Edwin

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Augustine appears to have a symbolic view of John 6 in the following. I think it can be said that early church fathers can, and often do, contradict themselves.

newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

It seems that way, but appearances are not identities.
Notice: Augustine qualifies the statement by saying:

It seems a vice … therefore it is a …

But it should be obvious that only that which IS only a vice is really to be interpreted as only a symbol.

Inasmuch as the perishable flesh of christ as he walked the earth would be implied by the statement, it is symbolic – because it would deprive christ of a body to eat up perishable flesh – and be cannibalism.

However, Augustine’s statement does not go so far as to make it symbolic unconditionally. One could reasonably conclude that Eucharist only seems a symbol based on this argument.

The catholic position is that the Eucharist is different in that division of the sacramental host does not divide the flesh and blood of Jesus which is present wholly, and entirely in any visible “portion”. Augustine doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching by the statement, even though it appears to.

It is, however, a terribly interesting quote.

 

[francesco920]

Please don’t take offense to this but that link shows nothing, I would like to read St Augustine’s actual sermon (most are accessible), that post has quotes pieced together as 1 quote as evidenced by the (…)'s
I can’t seem to find St. Aug’s sermons beyond #147 online, though I know he has 300-400 still around…Any help would be great.
I still haven’t responded to what you actually are claiming from these selected few sentences because I prefer to see his meaning, I think it’s a fair request!

Though I think you are reading into it way more than is there, as evidenced by the St’s comment “**you **are the body”

mgrfin can answer more than well enough, but if I may just point something out…

Under what context would this not mean what it says:

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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

He’s crystal clear. He says “that Bread…is the Body of Christ” and “what is in that chalice…is the Blood of Christ.” If he believed it was symbolic, why didn’t he just flat out just say so? Why does he repeat this again and again without ever clarifying that he’s talking about something merely symbolic?

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 the Blood of Christ.

Again he says the “bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.” Sounds clear to me.

Also, I’m not 100% sure about this but to me this sounds pretty much like he’s describing accidents vs. substance: he says that although “what your own eyes report to you” is “the bread and the chalice”, “what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread IS (my emphasis) the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.”

At any rate, I am interested to know how you could possibly interpret that to mean anything other than Augustine believes in the Real Presence?

920,
What in there supports your POV?
Just curious.

The part in bold.

Also, a smaller point to make is that he refers to the Eucharist as the “sacrament of His body and blood.” The very fact that he uses the word “sacrament” shows he did not believe the Eucharist was merely symbolic, because by definition a “sacrament” is not a mere symbol.

 

[Contarini]

Also, a smaller point to make is that he refers to the Eucharist as the “sacrament of His body and blood.” The very fact that he uses the word “sacrament” shows he did not believe the Eucharist was merely symbolic, because by definition a “sacrament” is not a mere symbol.

Well, you’d have to say “whose definition.” and what do we mean by symbol? However, I hope MFM is not claiming that Augustine thought the Eucharist was merely a symbol in the sense of a metaphor.

I think symbols are connected to the reality they signify, so to me “symbolic” and “real” are not mutually exclusive. I think the Eucharist is unquestionably a symbol–the question is, what kind of symbol is it?

Edwin

 

[JaneFrances]

Please don’t take offense to this but that link shows nothing, I would like to read St Augustine’s actual sermon (most are accessible), that post has quotes pieced together as 1 quote as evidenced by the (…)'s
I can’t seem to find St. Aug’s sermons beyond #147 online, though I know he has 300-400 still around…Any help would be great.

A more comprehensive collection of the Sermons can not be found online due to copyright issues in more contemporary translations. The quotations cited can be found, however, in bound print if you are interested.

Resources are:
“Sermon 227” on p. 254 of Vol. III/6 (Sermons 184-229Z on the Liturgical Seasons), translated by Edmund Hill, OP.

“Sermon 272” on p. 300 of Vol. III/7 (Sermons 230-272B on the Liturgical Seasons), translated by Edmund Hill, OP.

and extensive exerpts can be found in Jurgens, VOL 3.

I still haven’t responded to what you actually are claiming from these selected few sentences because I prefer to see his meaning, I think it’s a fair request!

Fair request indeed, but unfortunately one that will require you to do a little more work than clicking and reading. Alas, the Patristics are not as readily available as one would wish.

Though I think you are reading into it way more than is there, as evidenced by the St’s comment “**you **are the body”

I think it is rather the other way around. You seem to be reading Augustine through a filter which sifts out his Catholicism. No Catholic claims that the Church isn’t the “the Body of Christ.” Indeed we are! But our being the Body doesn’t preclude the Eucharist from being His Body.

There are numerous writings of Augustine which support his Catholic understanding of the Real Presence. The fact that he also speaks of a figurative sense and other parallel interpretations doesn’t mean he denied the Real Presence.