The Real Presence: Augustine

[SyCarl]

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:

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?

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?

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.

However Augustine’s language is not much different from that used by many Protestant denominations where the consecration is in the words “This is my body broken for you.” and “The body of Christ broken for you.” The language used by Augustine is not solely conformable to transubstantiation. I think that the Eucharist is a sacrament and a mystery. I don’t know that it necessary or possible for us to understand fully what happens in the sacrament.

 

[francesco920]

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

Oh, I agree that it is a symbol, and I don’t think that’s contradictory to saying that the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Christ and not bread and wine at all. So yes I agree “symbolic” and “real” are not mutually exclusive.

I was just saying it is not merely a symbol in the sense that excludes the “real” part. You know, like saying that a dove symbolizes the Holy Spirit but of course isn’t the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think there’s a definition of “sacrament” out there that states it is only a symbol in the sense, as you said, a metaphor, but then again I could be wrong.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Under what context would this not mean what it says:

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?

Taking Augustine as a whole he repeatedly describes the eucharist in terms like “signifies” or symbolizes, now we see a clip that can be taken many ways and you wonder why he doesn’t bring it up, yet in other situations he doesn’t really mean signifies, errr ?
Also, I grew up Lutheran and they also would have said what’s in that chalice is the blood, it doesn’t mean it as literal as transubstantiation belief suggests…

 

[Contarini]

Also, I grew up Lutheran and they also would have said what’s in that chalice is the blood, it doesn’t mean it as literal as transubstantiation belief suggests…

I won’t vouch for Lutherans as a whole or Catholics as a whole, but in my opinion Luther’s view of the Eucharist is more, not less literal than that of Aquinas.

Ediwn

 

[francesco920]

However Augustine’s language is not much different from that used by many Protestant denominations where the consecration is in the words “This is my body broken for you.” and “The body of Christ broken for you.” The language used by Augustine is not solely conformable to transubstantiation. I think that the Eucharist is a sacrament and a mystery. I don’t know that it necessary or possible for us to understand fully what happens in the sacrament.

You have a point, but when St. Augustine says that (and I’m paraphrasing) it’s not bread and wine even though that’s what your eyes tell you but rather it’s the Body and Blood of Christ because that’s what your faith tells you, that sounds like transubstantiation to me.

 

[Contarini]

However Augustine’s language is not much different from that used by many Protestant denominations where the consecration is in the words “This is my body broken for you.” and “The body of Christ broken for you.”

Gene Roddenberry (creator of Star Trek) allegedly abandoned Christianity as a teenager because he thought his Baptist church was practicing ritual cannibalism by celebrating the Lord’s Supper. I love this story (though it’s sad since I like Star Trek) because it’s ironic on so many levels. . . . mostly it shows that even when watered down to its farthest extreme, Christian sacramentalism still has a kick!

Edwin

 

[francesco920]

I won’t vouch for Lutherans as a whole or Catholics as a whole, but in my opinion Luther’s view of the Eucharist is more, not less literal than that of Aquinas.

Ediwn

I’ll bite. How so?

I thought Aquinas taught that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood…how can you get more literal than that?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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.

This may be true but in respect to the nature of the presence of Christ in the eucharist, you can’t deny Augustine’s doctrine has always presented many difficulties.

 

[Contarini]

I’ll bite. How so?

I thought Aquinas taught that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood…how can you get more literal than that?

What do you mean by “literal”? He said (ST 3, qu. 77) that the Body is not present locally (art. 5), is not moved when the elements are moved (art. 6), and cannot possibly be seen by the eye (so that Eucharistic miracles are not visions letting us see directly what is “really there” but extra miracles to illustrate the invisible reality of Christ’s Body and Blood; arts. 7-8). Furthermore, he taught that the whole Christ is present in each particle of the Eucharist, however small (arts. 1-4). None of this is “literal” in my book.

I have no problem with your calling it literal if you define the term carefully, but it’s not what I would think of when I heard the word, and I think if Catholics really believe what Aquinas believed, they are confusing Protestants terribly by using the word “literal” and making arguments that purport to defend ritual cannibalism!

Now as to Luther–Luther explicitly approved of the recantation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century, saying that Christ’s Body was literally chewed by the teeth (shades of contemporary Catholic apologists and their emphasis on the original sense of “trogo”). This is not, however, Aquinas’s teaching (ST 3, qu. 77, art. 7, ad 3): “Christ’s very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the confession made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ truly is.”

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Now as to Luther–Luther explicitly approved of the recantation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century, saying that Christ’s Body was literally chewed by the teeth (shades of contemporary Catholic apologists and their emphasis on the original sense of “trogo”).

Wow I find this surprising, this goes way further than my understanding of Lutheran theology. Am I wrong Edwin to question you on whether this was recanted by Martin later in life?

 

[JimG]

What do you mean by “literal”? He said (ST 3, qu. 77) that the Body is not present locally (art. 5), is not moved when the elements are moved (art. 6), and cannot possibly be seen by the eye (so that Eucharistic miracles are not visions letting us see directly what is “really there” but extra miracles to illustrate the invisible reality of Christ’s Body and Blood; arts. 7-8). Furthermore, he taught that the whole Christ is present in each particle of the Eucharist, however small (arts. 1-4). None of this is “literal” in my book.

I have no problem with your calling it literal if you define the term carefully, but it’s not what I would think of when I heard the word, and I think if Catholics really believe what Aquinas believed, they are confusing Protestants terribly by using the word “literal” and making arguments that purport to defend ritual cannibalism!

I think you have summed up Catholic belief about the Eucharist quite well here, by summarizing what Aquinas taught.

I have sometimes run across Catholics who think that they are receiving “a piece of Christ’s body,” but they are not. They are receiving his entire body, underneath the appearances of bread or wine. Because Christ is fully contained in the smallest particle of the host, it is impossible to “cannibilize” Jesus.

 

[francesco920]

What do you mean by “literal”? He said (ST 3, qu. 77) that the Body is not present locally (art. 5), is not moved when the elements are moved (art. 6), and cannot possibly be seen by the eye (so that Eucharistic miracles are not visions letting us see directly what is “really there” but extra miracles to illustrate the invisible reality of Christ’s Body and Blood; arts. 7-8). Furthermore, he taught that the whole Christ is present in each particle of the Eucharist, however small (arts. 1-4). None of this is “literal” in my book.

I have no problem with your calling it literal if you define the term carefully, but it’s not what I would think of when I heard the word, and I think if Catholics really believe what Aquinas believed, they are confusing Protestants terribly by using the word “literal” and making arguments that purport to defend ritual cannibalism!

Now as to Luther–Luther explicitly approved of the recantation Berengar was forced to sign in the 11th century, saying that Christ’s Body was literally chewed by the teeth (shades of contemporary Catholic apologists and their emphasis on the original sense of “trogo”). This is not, however, Aquinas’s teaching (ST 3, qu. 77, art. 7, ad 3): “Christ’s very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the confession made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ truly is.”

Edwin

I see what you mean. No, by “literal” I did not mean something like ritual cannibalism in which a part of the Lord’s Body is chewed/broken and eaten, but I can see how that image could arise with the use of the word “literal.”

So, what if I were to say “literal” in the sense that the Lord is “literally” present in the Eucharist and not just figuratively? Or how about if I say that, at the consecration, the substance of bread and wine is “literally” changed into the substance of His Body and Blood? Or is that still a misuse of the term?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

112.5

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI6-11.TXT

1. But whence arose an occasion, so to say, to the Lord, to speak of this
   supper? One of them that sat at meat with Him (for He was at a feast,
   whither He had been invited), had said, “Blessed are they who eat bread in
   the kingdom of God.”[6] He sighed as though after distant things, and the
   Bread Himself was sitting down before him. Who is the Bread of the kingdom
   of God, but He who saith, "I am the Living Bread which came down from
   heaven "?[7] Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart. On this occasion
   it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in
   Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think
   of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then
   what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have
   not sought for that outward sense; nor have we said, “Let them believe who
   have seen with their eyes, and handled with their hands the Lord Himself
   after His resurrection, if what is said be true; we do not touch Him, why
   should we believe?” If we were to entertain such thoughts, we should be
   kept back from the supper by those “five pairs of oxen.” That ye may know,
   Brethren, that not the gratification of these five senses, which softens
   and ministers pleasure, but a kind of curiosity was denoted, He did not
   say, “’ I have bought five pairs of oxen,’ and I go to feed them;” but, “I
   go to prove them.” He who wishes to "prove "by “the pairs of oxen,” does
   not wish to be in doubt, just as St. Thomas by these “pairs” did not wish
   to be in doubt. “Let me see, let me touch, let me put in my fingers.”
   “‘Behold,’ saith the Lord, ‘put in thy fingers along My Side, and be not
   unbelieving.’[8] For thy sake have I been slain; at the place which thou
   wishest to touch, have I shed My Blood, that I might redeem thee; and dost
   thou still doubt of Me, unless thou touch Me? Behold, this too I grant;
   behold, this too I show thee; touch, and believe; find out the place of My
   wound, heal the wound of thy doubting.”

 

[myfavoritmartin]

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.viii.html

Augustin against the Manichaeans

1. With all this, you venture to denounce the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and to call them idolatry, and to attribute to us the same impious notion. To answer for ourselves in the first place, while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority.

 

[francesco920]

112.5

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI6-11.TXT

1. But whence arose an occasion, so to say, to the Lord, to speak of this
   supper? One of them that sat at meat with Him (for He was at a feast,
   whither He had been invited), had said, “Blessed are they who eat bread in
   the kingdom of God.”[6] He sighed as though after distant things, and the
   Bread Himself was sitting down before him. Who is the Bread of the kingdom
   of God, but He who saith, "I am the Living Bread which came down from
   heaven "?[7] Do not get thy mouth ready, but thine heart. On this occasion
   it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in
   Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think
   of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then
   what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have
   not sought for that outward sense; nor have we said, “Let them believe who
   have seen with their eyes, and handled with their hands the Lord Himself
   after His resurrection, if what is said be true; we do not touch Him, why
   should we believe?” If we were to entertain such thoughts, we should be
   kept back from the supper by those “five pairs of oxen.” That ye may know,
   Brethren, that not the gratification of these five senses, which softens
   and ministers pleasure, but a kind of curiosity was denoted, He did not
   say, “’ I have bought five pairs of oxen,’ and I go to feed them;” but, “I
   go to prove them.” He who wishes to "prove "by “the pairs of oxen,” does
   not wish to be in doubt, just as St. Thomas by these “pairs” did not wish
   to be in doubt. “Let me see, let me touch, let me put in my fingers.”
   “‘Behold,’ saith the Lord, ‘put in thy fingers along My Side, and be not
   unbelieving.’[8] For thy sake have I been slain; at the place which thou
   wishest to touch, have I shed My Blood, that I might redeem thee; and dost
   thou still doubt of Me, unless thou touch Me? Behold, this too I grant;
   behold, this too I show thee; touch, and believe; find out the place of My
   wound, heal the wound of thy doubting.”

The first thing you put in bold is in line with Catholic teaching. We believe in making our hearts ready to receive the grace of the sacrament.

The second thing you put in bold also is in line with Catholic teaching. We may see bread and wine, but in substance the Eucharist is not bread and wine but the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.viii.html

Augustin against the Manichaeans

1. With all this, you venture to denounce the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and to call them idolatry, and to attribute to us the same impious notion. To answer for ourselves in the first place, while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, **sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical **authority.

Catholics do not say that Mass is not a commemoration; just the opposite is true. We do commemorate the Lord’s sacrifice, as He Himself commanded in scripture, by making it really present at each Mass.

Catholics do not and do not claim to offer new sacrifices or to sacrifice Christ again and again. How you see “symbolical authority” contrary to the Catholic belief of the Real Presence is beyond me.

 

[Contarini]

I see what you mean. No, by “literal” I did not mean something like ritual cannibalism in which a part of the Lord’s Body is chewed/broken and eaten, but I can see how that image could arise with the use of the word “literal.”

So, what if I were to say “literal” in the sense that the Lord is “literally” present in the Eucharist and not just figuratively? Or how about if I say that, at the consecration, the substance of bread and wine is “literally” changed into the substance of His Body and Blood? Or is that still a misuse of the term?

I don’t know, francesco. It’s a difficult issue. Bellarmine does deny that there is a trope in the words of Institution, and in that sense affirms them to be literal (he may say the same thing about John 6, but I don’t remember for sure). Aquinas uses the phrase “according to truth” (secundum veritatem) in contrast to “only according to a figure, or as in a sign” (“solum secundum figuram, vel sicut in signo”). I think language like “real” and true" is better than “literal,” but of course the problem is that people can think you mean something vague and mushy, like “Jesus is really here because we feel His presence.”

I have often (like many Anglicans) argued that transubstantiation is problematic because there is no way it can be translated into modern language without distortion. However, in my more Catholic moments I have thought that this may be an advantage. Maybe we modern people have such a distorted view of physical reality (one that is very useful for purposes of manipulation and experimentation and technological progress, admittedly) that the orthodox view simply can’t be translated into our terms? Maybe using the technical language of “substance” is the only way to challenge this dessicated modern view of reality? After all, the doctrine of transubstantiation blew Aristotle’s categories to smithereens (contrary to the common charge that it arose out of Aristotelian thinking). But at least Aristotle’s philosophy was open enough to transcendence that the terminology could be used.

Perhaps one of the reasons the Real Presence is so important is that it does blow our unredeemed view of the physical world to smithereens, and announce a new kind of reality altogether!

Edwin

 

[jco2004]

1. “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” St Augustine Sermon 131:10

St. Augustine never said those exact words. Joe

 

[mgrfin]

St. Augustine never said those exact words. Joe

Right. St. Augustine did not speak English. What he said was:

'Roma locuta est, causa finita est"

(which, when translated is “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”)

peace

 

[PhilVaz]

Rome has spoken is a paraphrase of

“My brethren, be of one mind with me. Wheresoever you find such men do not hide them, have no perverse pity. Refute those who contradict, and bring to us those who resist. For already two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See [the Pope in Rome] concerning this matter, and rescripts have come from thence [from Rome]. The case is concluded; would that the error would soon cease also [Latin: Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error].” (Sermon 131:10; preached Sunday, September 23rd, 417 AD)

Protestant editors on the Fathers say of the phrase:

“Hence the famous words: ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est,’ which is often quoted as an argument for the modern Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. But it is not found in this form, though we may admit it is an epigrammatic condensation of sentences of Augustine. The nearest approach to it is in his Sermon CXXXI [131]…” (NPNF Series 1, Volume 1, page 21)

Read all of Chapman and you’ll see “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is an accurate summary of Augustine’s position on the Papacy.

Now onto St. Augustine and Eucharist.

Tertullian and Cyprian too.

St. Augustine did not use the “conversion” language of Fathers St. Ambrose in the West, and such Eastern Fathers as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene who are all closer to transubstantiation than St. Augustine. The word “transubstantiate” (change of substance) was first used in the 12th century by theologians Magister Roland (who later became Pope Alexander III) about 1150, Stephen of Tournai about 1160, Petrus Comestor about 1160-70. The term transubstantiation was first officially used by the Church in the Decretals of Pope Innocent III, and later by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). See discussion in Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 379ff.

But to say St. Augustine or any of the Fathers resembled a “symbolical” or even “Calvinist” view is kind of silly in light of this language:

“There is like terminology in the West. A canon of the Council of Arles, held in 314 A.D., like the Council of Nicaea eleven years later in the East, incidentally contains the word ‘OFFER’ to describe the work of the presbyters which the deacons might not perform [Canon 15]. St. Optatus of Milevis uses the words ‘SACRIFICE’ and ‘OFFER’ in regard to the Eucharist [2:12]. St. Ambrose says that it is part of the work of the Christian ministry to ‘OFFER SACRIFICE for the people’; that Christ ‘is Himself on earth when the body of Christ is OFFERED’; and that the word of Christ ‘consecrates the SACRIFICE which is OFFERED’ [In Ps 38 Enar 25]. St. Augustine refers to the Eucharist as ‘the SACRIFICE of our redemption,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Mediator,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of peace,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of love,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Church’ [Conf 9:32; Enchir 110; In Ps 21 Enar 2:28; In Ps 33 Enar 1:5; De civ Dei 10:20]. St. Leo speaks of ‘the OFFERING of the SACRIFICE’ as an act of Christian worship [Serm 26:1; 91:3].” (from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, volume 1, page 113)

Much more in my St. Augustine and Eucharist article.

Sorry didn’t notice the new “Philosophy” sub-forum here. I have to “get out” more.

Phil P

 

[mgrfin]

Rome has spoken is a paraphrase of

“My brethren, be of one mind with me. Wheresoever you find such men do not hide them, have no perverse pity. Refute those who contradict, and bring to us those who resist. For already two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See [the Pope in Rome] concerning this matter, and rescripts have come from thence [from Rome]. The case is concluded; would that the error would soon cease also [Latin: Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error].” (Sermon 131:10; preached Sunday, September 23rd, 417 AD)

Protestant editors on the Fathers say of the phrase:

“Hence the famous words: ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est,’ which is often quoted as an argument for the modern Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. But it is not found in this form, though we may admit it is an epigrammatic condensation of sentences of Augustine. The nearest approach to it is in his Sermon CXXXI [131]…” (NPNF Series 1, Volume 1, page 21)

Read all of Chapman and you’ll see “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is an accurate summary of Augustine’s position on the Papacy.

Now onto St. Augustine and Eucharist.

Tertullian and Cyprian too.

St. Augustine did not use the “conversion” language of Fathers St. Ambrose in the West, and such Eastern Fathers as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene who are all closer to transubstantiation than St. Augustine. The word “transubstantiate” (change of substance) was first used in the 12th century by theologians Magister Roland (who later became Pope Alexander III) about 1150, Stephen of Tournai about 1160, Petrus Comestor about 1160-70. The term transubstantiation was first officially used by the Church in the Decretals of Pope Innocent III, and later by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). See discussion in Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 379ff.

But to say St. Augustine or any of the Fathers resembled a “symbolical” or even “Calvinist” view is kind of silly in light of this language:

“There is like terminology in the West. A canon of the Council of Arles, held in 314 A.D., like the Council of Nicaea eleven years later in the East, incidentally contains the word ‘OFFER’ to describe the work of the presbyters which the deacons might not perform [Canon 15]. St. Optatus of Milevis uses the words ‘SACRIFICE’ and ‘OFFER’ in regard to the Eucharist [2:12]. St. Ambrose says that it is part of the work of the Christian ministry to ‘OFFER SACRIFICE for the people’; that Christ ‘is Himself on earth when the body of Christ is OFFERED’; and that the word of Christ ‘consecrates the SACRIFICE which is OFFERED’ [In Ps 38 Enar 25]. St. Augustine refers to the Eucharist as ‘the SACRIFICE of our redemption,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Mediator,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of peace,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of love,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Church’ [Conf 9:32; Enchir 110; In Ps 21 Enar 2:28; In Ps 33 Enar 1:5; De civ Dei 10:20]. St. Leo speaks of ‘the OFFERING of the SACRIFICE’ as an act of Christian worship [Serm 26:1; 91:3].” (from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, volume 1, page 113)

Much more in my St. Augustine and Eucharist article.

Sorry didn’t notice the new “Philosophy” sub-forum here. I have to “get out” more.

Phil P

Welcome. It is good to have a real theologian on board. I’ll read it all (avidly) when I get some peace and quiet here.

peace