D
- Status
T
Trebor135
Guest
- Christ was the God-man, and the apostles were the men he appointed. They had the authority to oppose the Pharisees. Equating Protestants with Christ and the apostles is comparing apples and oranges, since Protestants have no authority from heaven to uproot the Catholic/Orthodox Christian faith. The pride in claiming such a prerogative is truly breathtaking.
- Fulfillment doesn’t mean abolition–Jesus said so himself–so Christians don’t have to abandon the “wonderful traditions and feasts and rites” of Judaism wholesale, just modify them or exchange them for something specifically Christian (cf. Passover/Easter and circumcision/baptism, respectively).
- The difference between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (both equally liturgical and “ritualistic”) on the one hand and Buddhism and Islam on the other is… Christ. His mission, passion, and resurrection. Equating Catholicism and Orthodoxy with non-Christian religions is also comparing apples and oranges.
N
Nicea325
Guest
.
Sorry,but stating that one belongs to the one true is not pride,but simply admitting a fact. It is more prideful to deny facts than to accept them at face value.
Yep! Martin Luther! Take a jab at his attitude and you let me know if his pride was not higher than cloud nine? Orthodoxy? Really? Tell me the name of its founder and year it was founded? .
You know exactly what I mean. Protestanism roots stem from prideful men who apparently knew better and wanted to implement their novel beliefs: Sola Scriptura,Faith Alone,etc,etc and still no end in sight.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Perhaps St. Augustine figured his audience would understand him. It’s impossible to determine his true meaning without having the whole sermon in front of us (or dropping him a line in heaven). If you have a link, please share.
The first passage refers to someone who has to be forced to recognize and flee from his sin by experiencing punishment in the world. The second is quite vague.
The Bible doesn’t use “spiritual” to mean “figurative” or “symbolic” in any case I’m aware of. That’s really the crux of the matter.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Well, for a magnificent example of boundless pride, let’s look at the words penned by the founder of Protestantism (these excerpts are taken from “Martin Luther the ‘Super-Pope’ and ‘de facto’ Infallibility”):
A
Angela77
Guest
John 6:51 and on is what convinces me of the Real Presence. Here John says that the Jews murmured to each other in disbelief about how Jesus’s flesh could possibly be eaten. This shows that the way Jesus said it led people to believe he was speaking literally. Then he responds by saying that, yes, they have to eat if they want eternal life. He didn’t correct them by saying, “Oh no, I meant it symbolically.” He told them they actually had to eat it. Furthermore, he emphasizes that he is the bread from “Heaven.” This means that his body and blood may not actually be of the human body, but of what bodies look like in Heaven. So the bread and wine don’t have to look like human body and blood to be Jesus.
Additionally, the word “eat” that John used was the Greek word for animals eating, not for humans eating. My Bible has a footnote saying that this emphasizes how Jesus meant his body and blood should be literally eaten.
That’s my take on all this.
Additionally, the word “eat” that John used was the Greek word for animals eating, not for humans eating. My Bible has a footnote saying that this emphasizes how Jesus meant his body and blood should be literally eaten.
That’s my take on all this.
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 1
Hi Radical,
I hope this finds you well. I have another long reply in regards to the bottom post which is centered on answering the “how” of Augustine’s Sermons 227 and 272 (as well as 229a). There is going to be a lot of parts again but I hope you are in the mood to read.
I have spent numerous hours a day (4-5 hours at least) studying Augustine trying to understand his theology on the Body of Christ. I spent a lot of time trying to come up with something unique (and IMHO accurate) in explaining the “how” of Augustine. I find it difficult to think that Augustine TRULY believed that the Body of Christ in the bread and the Blood of Christ in the wine can ONLY be understood as the people of Christ. I want to begin by acknowledging that it is very possible that Augustine truly believed that the people were on that altar in a CERTAIN way as a sign of unity. Before we get into that, let’s first establish something.
You seem to know about Augustine and you seem to have read a lot about Augustine. I am sure you are aware of his battles with heretics such as the Donatists. In Augustine’s time, there was a split between the Catholics and the Donatists. Augustine wanted to bring unity between the two and this understanding of “unifying the two” plays a huge role in understanding Augustine’s “how” and why it is he chose to use such an explanation.
Continued in Part 2
Hi Radical,
I hope this finds you well. I have another long reply in regards to the bottom post which is centered on answering the “how” of Augustine’s Sermons 227 and 272 (as well as 229a). There is going to be a lot of parts again but I hope you are in the mood to read.
After about 3 weeks, I am finally able to provide a response in regards to Augustine’s “how”. I have promised you a response and I hope my response satisfies your request in one way or another. I did not want to give you a half-hearted answer by ONLY saying something such as: Well you see, the fact that the people were once corporal and worldly have now been transformed into the Body of Christ through baptism. Therefore, the bread, which was once regular bread, has now been transformed into the Body of Christ." I don’t think this satisfies anything. Although this is part of what Augustine is saying (IMHO), I don’t think this explains the “how” in Sermons 227 and 272. And so it begins.
I have spent numerous hours a day (4-5 hours at least) studying Augustine trying to understand his theology on the Body of Christ. I spent a lot of time trying to come up with something unique (and IMHO accurate) in explaining the “how” of Augustine. I find it difficult to think that Augustine TRULY believed that the Body of Christ in the bread and the Blood of Christ in the wine can ONLY be understood as the people of Christ. I want to begin by acknowledging that it is very possible that Augustine truly believed that the people were on that altar in a CERTAIN way as a sign of unity. Before we get into that, let’s first establish something.
You seem to know about Augustine and you seem to have read a lot about Augustine. I am sure you are aware of his battles with heretics such as the Donatists. In Augustine’s time, there was a split between the Catholics and the Donatists. Augustine wanted to bring unity between the two and this understanding of “unifying the two” plays a huge role in understanding Augustine’s “how” and why it is he chose to use such an explanation.
Continued in Part 2
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 2…
For Augustine, in order for a sacrament to be FULLY valid, it must be done in the unity of the Body of Christ. Augustine’s focus on the Eucharist was not on the Bodily Presence of Christ. His focus and his Eucharistic theology is centered on unity in the Body of Christ (the Church). I believe you would agree with me at this point. With that said, I do not think that, just because his theology is not centered on the bodily presence (in sermons 227 and 272), that he doesn’t believe in the Bodily Presence. I would hope that you would agree with that as well. His goal was to bring unity between the divided churches that have separated themselves from what he believes to be the true Church (Catholic Church). In doing a lot of study on this, I have come to a conclusion that the African Christians had a HUGE focus on the unity of the Church. They applied this unity in the theology of the Eucharist. This is not to deny that they denied a BP (Bodily Presence) of Christ in the Eucharist; on the contrary, they believed it but they just did not stress it as much as the Antiochean theology of the Eucharist. Augustine is not the first one to talk about the people being on the altar in the bread and wine. St. Cyprian, a 3rd Century Bishop (who was in North Africa as well) is the first one to use this language. Here is what he says:
“Even the very Sacrifices of the Lord bespeak a Christian unanimity bound to itself by a firm and inseparable charity. When the Lord calls bread made from the union of many granules His Body, He points out our people, whom He was betokening as made one; and when He calls wine, which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and reduced to a whole, His Blood, He signifies our flock, joined together by the blending of a multitude into one.” (Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Magnus, A.D 255, Jurgens, the Faith of the Early Fathers Volume I page 235).
Compare that with Augustine’s two Sermons where he talks about the many grapes made into one vine and the many wheat made into one bread.
Here is a part of Sermon 272:
“So why in bread? Let’s not bring anything of our own to bear here, let’s go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were being exorcised, it’s as though you were being ground. When you were baptized it’s as though you were mixed into dough. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it’s as though you were baked. Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about the cup, even if it wasn’t said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves.” (Augustine – Sermon 272).
Do you notice the similarities? This is the Eucharistic theology of the North African Bishops. They were facing divisions and stressed unity in the sacraments. They did not only stress unity in the sacrament of the Lord’s Table but also the sacrament of Baptism.
With that said, J. Patout Burns, in “The Eucharistic Presence of the Body of Christ according to Augustine” talks about St. Cyprian and says:
Cyprian clearly believed in the bodily presence of Jesus in the eucharistic bread and wine. He asserted that sharing in Christ would strengthen and empower the Christian to imitate his martyrdom (E.P.P 57.4.2,63). The principal function of the eucharist in Cyprian’s thought, and apparently in that of the African Christianity of his day, however, was to establish the unity of the church, itself the necessary means for gaining access to the kingdom of heaven (ep. 63.13.1-4).
With that said, there is a twofold reality in the Eucharistic theology of North African Bishops. They truly believed in the Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and this is why Augustine can use realistic language and apply it to the Lord’s Table – which I will discuss in more detail later on) and also stressed the unity of the church in the sacrament(s) (and this is why we can quote Cyprian and Augustine sharing the same beliefs in the people being the bread and wine). It is my duty to show that the latter is only allegorical and figurative while the former is literal. This may sound biased at first, but I will be explaining why I believe this in more detail in my response as I proceed with my explanation.
Continued in Part 3…
For Augustine, in order for a sacrament to be FULLY valid, it must be done in the unity of the Body of Christ. Augustine’s focus on the Eucharist was not on the Bodily Presence of Christ. His focus and his Eucharistic theology is centered on unity in the Body of Christ (the Church). I believe you would agree with me at this point. With that said, I do not think that, just because his theology is not centered on the bodily presence (in sermons 227 and 272), that he doesn’t believe in the Bodily Presence. I would hope that you would agree with that as well. His goal was to bring unity between the divided churches that have separated themselves from what he believes to be the true Church (Catholic Church). In doing a lot of study on this, I have come to a conclusion that the African Christians had a HUGE focus on the unity of the Church. They applied this unity in the theology of the Eucharist. This is not to deny that they denied a BP (Bodily Presence) of Christ in the Eucharist; on the contrary, they believed it but they just did not stress it as much as the Antiochean theology of the Eucharist. Augustine is not the first one to talk about the people being on the altar in the bread and wine. St. Cyprian, a 3rd Century Bishop (who was in North Africa as well) is the first one to use this language. Here is what he says:
“Even the very Sacrifices of the Lord bespeak a Christian unanimity bound to itself by a firm and inseparable charity. When the Lord calls bread made from the union of many granules His Body, He points out our people, whom He was betokening as made one; and when He calls wine, which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and reduced to a whole, His Blood, He signifies our flock, joined together by the blending of a multitude into one.” (Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Magnus, A.D 255, Jurgens, the Faith of the Early Fathers Volume I page 235).
Compare that with Augustine’s two Sermons where he talks about the many grapes made into one vine and the many wheat made into one bread.
Here is a part of Sermon 272:
“So why in bread? Let’s not bring anything of our own to bear here, let’s go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were being exorcised, it’s as though you were being ground. When you were baptized it’s as though you were mixed into dough. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it’s as though you were baked. Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about the cup, even if it wasn’t said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves.” (Augustine – Sermon 272).
Do you notice the similarities? This is the Eucharistic theology of the North African Bishops. They were facing divisions and stressed unity in the sacraments. They did not only stress unity in the sacrament of the Lord’s Table but also the sacrament of Baptism.
With that said, J. Patout Burns, in “The Eucharistic Presence of the Body of Christ according to Augustine” talks about St. Cyprian and says:
Cyprian clearly believed in the bodily presence of Jesus in the eucharistic bread and wine. He asserted that sharing in Christ would strengthen and empower the Christian to imitate his martyrdom (E.P.P 57.4.2,63). The principal function of the eucharist in Cyprian’s thought, and apparently in that of the African Christianity of his day, however, was to establish the unity of the church, itself the necessary means for gaining access to the kingdom of heaven (ep. 63.13.1-4).
With that said, there is a twofold reality in the Eucharistic theology of North African Bishops. They truly believed in the Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and this is why Augustine can use realistic language and apply it to the Lord’s Table – which I will discuss in more detail later on) and also stressed the unity of the church in the sacrament(s) (and this is why we can quote Cyprian and Augustine sharing the same beliefs in the people being the bread and wine). It is my duty to show that the latter is only allegorical and figurative while the former is literal. This may sound biased at first, but I will be explaining why I believe this in more detail in my response as I proceed with my explanation.
Continued in Part 3…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 3…
J. Patout Burns, in commentating about Augustine’s twofold theology of the Eucharist, says:
“The connection which Augustine established between the physical and the ecclesial bodies of Christ and the distinction which he introduced between the visible church (which included sinners) and the invisible society of saints within it, when taken together allowed him to direct Christian attention to the role of the eucharist in building the church. The eucharistic bread and wine were the sacramentum whose res was both the physical and the ecclesial body of Christ. He identified the ecclesial body of Christ not with the visible church but with the invisible society of saints, whose unifying and animating principle was the Holy Spirit. Thus the sharing of the physical and ecclesial bodies of Christ was focused on transforming the recipients into the ecclesial body, rather than the physical body of Christ. Christians could be exhorted to become what they received in a most literal sense-the ecclesial body of Christ. While being part of the visible body of Christ was a necessary condition for salvation, participating in the invisible body was constitutive of salvation. Those and only those who shared the Spirit of Christ would enter his kingdom. Conversely, those who rejected the ecclesial body of Christ through schism could not hold neither it nor the physical body of Christ in the eucharistic elements.” (ibid).
In the beginning of his paper, Burns acknowledges “Although Augustine clearly asserted the bodily presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the eucharist, he did not make this the focus of his preaching and writing on the eucharist. Instead, he emphasized the connection between the presence of Jesus in the elements and in the community of the church” (ibid). He says that there are three reasons for why Augustine focuses on such a connection and the three reasons are as follows:
1.) The Eucharist and Redemption
2.) The Eucharist and the Unity of the Church
3.) The Eucharist in Schism
If you would like to read the full paper and how he expands on the three, go to people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/chroma/eucharist/euchBurns2.html#N_13_
It is a very well written and thought about paper.
Now, with all that said, my theory of Augustine’s “how” is something that depends on the foundation we have set. My theory will not be found in that paper; however, the theory depends greatly on the historical context of Augustine’s time and also their theology of the Body of Christ and unity between all churches. I did a lot of word search on Augustine’s use of “Body of Christ” and the “Unity of the Church” and found a lot of interesting theology of Augustine. If one is to take Augustine literally on the people being the Body of Christ in the bread and the Blood of Christ in the wine, one would have to be consistent and would need to admit that Augustine truly believed these things literally.
Radical, I have taken your advice on “not applying our modern way of thinking and applying it to Augustine’s theology” and have come to a conclusion that Augustine’s emphasis on the unity of the Church is due to the divisions between the True Church (Catholic Church) and the Donatists (and whatever other divisions there were). Once we go into studying Augustine’s theology of the Body of Christ, we will be able to further comprehend Augustine’s sermons on 227 and 272. So let’s quote Augustine right now and hopefully I can be clear on explaining everything (which is something I need a lot of work on as you know yourself).
There’s going to be a lot of things to quote so please bear with me because everything that I am about to quote is of great importance in making a point.
Continued in part 4…
J. Patout Burns, in commentating about Augustine’s twofold theology of the Eucharist, says:
“The connection which Augustine established between the physical and the ecclesial bodies of Christ and the distinction which he introduced between the visible church (which included sinners) and the invisible society of saints within it, when taken together allowed him to direct Christian attention to the role of the eucharist in building the church. The eucharistic bread and wine were the sacramentum whose res was both the physical and the ecclesial body of Christ. He identified the ecclesial body of Christ not with the visible church but with the invisible society of saints, whose unifying and animating principle was the Holy Spirit. Thus the sharing of the physical and ecclesial bodies of Christ was focused on transforming the recipients into the ecclesial body, rather than the physical body of Christ. Christians could be exhorted to become what they received in a most literal sense-the ecclesial body of Christ. While being part of the visible body of Christ was a necessary condition for salvation, participating in the invisible body was constitutive of salvation. Those and only those who shared the Spirit of Christ would enter his kingdom. Conversely, those who rejected the ecclesial body of Christ through schism could not hold neither it nor the physical body of Christ in the eucharistic elements.” (ibid).
In the beginning of his paper, Burns acknowledges “Although Augustine clearly asserted the bodily presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the eucharist, he did not make this the focus of his preaching and writing on the eucharist. Instead, he emphasized the connection between the presence of Jesus in the elements and in the community of the church” (ibid). He says that there are three reasons for why Augustine focuses on such a connection and the three reasons are as follows:
1.) The Eucharist and Redemption
2.) The Eucharist and the Unity of the Church
3.) The Eucharist in Schism
If you would like to read the full paper and how he expands on the three, go to people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/chroma/eucharist/euchBurns2.html#N_13_
It is a very well written and thought about paper.
Now, with all that said, my theory of Augustine’s “how” is something that depends on the foundation we have set. My theory will not be found in that paper; however, the theory depends greatly on the historical context of Augustine’s time and also their theology of the Body of Christ and unity between all churches. I did a lot of word search on Augustine’s use of “Body of Christ” and the “Unity of the Church” and found a lot of interesting theology of Augustine. If one is to take Augustine literally on the people being the Body of Christ in the bread and the Blood of Christ in the wine, one would have to be consistent and would need to admit that Augustine truly believed these things literally.
Radical, I have taken your advice on “not applying our modern way of thinking and applying it to Augustine’s theology” and have come to a conclusion that Augustine’s emphasis on the unity of the Church is due to the divisions between the True Church (Catholic Church) and the Donatists (and whatever other divisions there were). Once we go into studying Augustine’s theology of the Body of Christ, we will be able to further comprehend Augustine’s sermons on 227 and 272. So let’s quote Augustine right now and hopefully I can be clear on explaining everything (which is something I need a lot of work on as you know yourself).
There’s going to be a lot of things to quote so please bear with me because everything that I am about to quote is of great importance in making a point.
Continued in part 4…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 4…
First passage of Augustine:
2…Many things are commanded, many things are done; but it’s just one who commands, and one who is served. What our spirit, that is our soul, is to the parts or members of our body, that the Holy Spirit is to the members of Christ, to the body of Christ. That’s why the apostle, after mentioning one body, in case we should take it as a dead body —One body, he says.
But I ask you, is this body alive?
It’s alive
What with?
With one spirit. And one spirit.
So consider, brothers and sisters, the case of our own bodies, and grieve for those who cut themselves off from the Church. With our parts or members, as long as we’re alive, while we’re in good health, all the members carry out their functions. If one member is hurt in any way, all the other members sympathize with it. And yet, because it’s in the body, while it can feel pain, it can’t expire. What, after all, does it mean to expire, but to lose the spirit? But now, if a member is cut off from the body, the spirit doesn’t follow, does it? And yet the members can be recognized for what it is; it’s a finger, a hand, an arm, an ear. Apart from the body it retains its shape, it doesn’t retain life. So too with persons separated from the Church. You ask them about the sacrament, you find it; you look for baptism, you find it; you look for the creed, you find it. That’s the shape or form; unless you are quickened inwardly by the Spirit, any boasting you do about the outward form is meaningless.
In this Sermon, Augustine is talking about the Resurrection where Christ appeared to His Disciples BODILY (from Luke 24). Augustine emphasizes that Christ rose BODILY and He ate in front of them to prove His Resurrection in case they have any doubts that what they are seeing is NOT a spirit but a BODY. With that said, you and I agree that Augustine TRULY believed that Christ rose bodily. Yet, Augustine goes on to say "The Lord himself impresses the importance of the unity of the Church upon the apostles. He shows himself to them… He takes it in their presence, he thereby impresses on them, against the godless, the true reality of his body, he impresses on them the unity of the Church." When Augustine talks about “the unity of the Church” (not just in this writing but in many other writings), he unites it with the theology of the Body of Christ. THIS is why, here, when he talks about the Body of Christ rising, he relates it to the UNITY OF THE CHURCH. As if to say “Christ’s body is really the members of the church”. Yet, you and I would both deny that Augustine is speaking literally here about Christ’s Body being the unity of the Church and yet at the same time we would both accept that Augustine is speaking LITERALLY here in regards to a bodily resurrection of Christ. One is figurative (unity of the Church being his body) and one is literal (Christ’s Body is truly risen).
Notice how the context of the sermon is centered on unity and yet the reality of the Resurrection is still there. Christ rising Bodily is not something that Augustine’s reader is going to deny JUST because Augustine said that the Body of Christ (the literal one) is the unity of the Church. The historical context of Augustine is of great importance in order to understand Augustine’s way of thinking and his emphasis on unity in the Body of Christ.
Continued in part 5…
First passage of Augustine:
2…Many things are commanded, many things are done; but it’s just one who commands, and one who is served. What our spirit, that is our soul, is to the parts or members of our body, that the Holy Spirit is to the members of Christ, to the body of Christ. That’s why the apostle, after mentioning one body, in case we should take it as a dead body —One body, he says.
But I ask you, is this body alive?
It’s alive
What with?
With one spirit. And one spirit.
So consider, brothers and sisters, the case of our own bodies, and grieve for those who cut themselves off from the Church. With our parts or members, as long as we’re alive, while we’re in good health, all the members carry out their functions. If one member is hurt in any way, all the other members sympathize with it. And yet, because it’s in the body, while it can feel pain, it can’t expire. What, after all, does it mean to expire, but to lose the spirit? But now, if a member is cut off from the body, the spirit doesn’t follow, does it? And yet the members can be recognized for what it is; it’s a finger, a hand, an arm, an ear. Apart from the body it retains its shape, it doesn’t retain life. So too with persons separated from the Church. You ask them about the sacrament, you find it; you look for baptism, you find it; you look for the creed, you find it. That’s the shape or form; unless you are quickened inwardly by the Spirit, any boasting you do about the outward form is meaningless.
- My dearest friends, there’s so much God does in order to emphasize the importance of unity.
- The Lord himself impresses the importance of the unity of the Church upon the apostles. He shows himself to them, they think they’re seeing a spirit; they’re petrified, they’re reassured, they’re told, Why are you troubled, and thoughts coming up into your hearts? See my hands; feel and see that a spirit does not have bones and flesh, as you can see that I have (LK 24:38-39). And look, while they are still agitated for very joy, he takes some food, not because he needs it, but to show that he can. He takes it in their presence, he thereby impresses on them, against the godless, the true reality of his body, he impresses on them the unity of the Church.
After all, what does he say? Isn’t this what I spoke to you about, while I was still with you, that it was necessary for all the things to be fulfilled that were written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms? Then he opened their minds, it’s the gospel speaking, to understand the scriptures. And he said to them, that thus it was written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead on the third day (LK 24:44-46). There you have our head, there’s the head, where are the members? There’s the bridegroom, where’s the bride? Read the marriage contract; listen to the bridegroom. You’re looking for the bride? Hear about her from him. Nobody is taking his bride from him, nobody substituting a strange one; hear about her from him. Where are you looking for Christ; in the fables of men, or in the truth of the gospels? He suffered, he rose again on the third day, he showed himself to his disciples. Now we have him; where are we to look for her?
In this Sermon, Augustine is talking about the Resurrection where Christ appeared to His Disciples BODILY (from Luke 24). Augustine emphasizes that Christ rose BODILY and He ate in front of them to prove His Resurrection in case they have any doubts that what they are seeing is NOT a spirit but a BODY. With that said, you and I agree that Augustine TRULY believed that Christ rose bodily. Yet, Augustine goes on to say "The Lord himself impresses the importance of the unity of the Church upon the apostles. He shows himself to them… He takes it in their presence, he thereby impresses on them, against the godless, the true reality of his body, he impresses on them the unity of the Church." When Augustine talks about “the unity of the Church” (not just in this writing but in many other writings), he unites it with the theology of the Body of Christ. THIS is why, here, when he talks about the Body of Christ rising, he relates it to the UNITY OF THE CHURCH. As if to say “Christ’s body is really the members of the church”. Yet, you and I would both deny that Augustine is speaking literally here about Christ’s Body being the unity of the Church and yet at the same time we would both accept that Augustine is speaking LITERALLY here in regards to a bodily resurrection of Christ. One is figurative (unity of the Church being his body) and one is literal (Christ’s Body is truly risen).
Notice how the context of the sermon is centered on unity and yet the reality of the Resurrection is still there. Christ rising Bodily is not something that Augustine’s reader is going to deny JUST because Augustine said that the Body of Christ (the literal one) is the unity of the Church. The historical context of Augustine is of great importance in order to understand Augustine’s way of thinking and his emphasis on unity in the Body of Christ.
Continued in part 5…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 5…
Since we can quote Augustine holding to a RP of Christ in the Eucharist (which I will do in more detail later on) and we can also quote Augustine talking about the members of Christ being the Body of Christ, one can come to a conclusion that Augustine is NOT denying the RP JUST because he is emphasizing the people on the altar (which focuses on the unity of the church) the same way we can say that Christ is NOT denying the bodily resurrection of Christ JUST because he calls Christ’s body “the unity of the church”. We can quote passages from Augustine that would show that he believed Christ TRULY rose BODILY. Once we are able to do that, we can easily reconcile his symbolic language of the resurrection with his literal language of the resurrection. Once we do that, one is not to choose which side Augustine seems to lean towards more, but the obvious thing to do is to understand the historical context and the reasons behind an emphasis on unity. Once we establish that, we can truly assure that Augustine believed in the Resurrection of Christ in a literal way and also believed in a RP of Christ in a literal way as well. If one is going to deny one, one must also be fair and consistent and deny the other. We cannot choose which ones suite our theology better and force Augustine to believe or not believe in something that we would not want him to believe in.
One can accuse me of being biased about this but I don’t think I am being biased. Rather, I am being consistent. We will be coming back to this later on, but now, I would like to quote another passage from Augustine.
The following is from Sermon 66 and it is a sermon with the Resurrection as the Context:
Since we can quote Augustine holding to a RP of Christ in the Eucharist (which I will do in more detail later on) and we can also quote Augustine talking about the members of Christ being the Body of Christ, one can come to a conclusion that Augustine is NOT denying the RP JUST because he is emphasizing the people on the altar (which focuses on the unity of the church) the same way we can say that Christ is NOT denying the bodily resurrection of Christ JUST because he calls Christ’s body “the unity of the church”. We can quote passages from Augustine that would show that he believed Christ TRULY rose BODILY. Once we are able to do that, we can easily reconcile his symbolic language of the resurrection with his literal language of the resurrection. Once we do that, one is not to choose which side Augustine seems to lean towards more, but the obvious thing to do is to understand the historical context and the reasons behind an emphasis on unity. Once we establish that, we can truly assure that Augustine believed in the Resurrection of Christ in a literal way and also believed in a RP of Christ in a literal way as well. If one is going to deny one, one must also be fair and consistent and deny the other. We cannot choose which ones suite our theology better and force Augustine to believe or not believe in something that we would not want him to believe in.
One can accuse me of being biased about this but I don’t think I am being biased. Rather, I am being consistent. We will be coming back to this later on, but now, I would like to quote another passage from Augustine.
The following is from Sermon 66 and it is a sermon with the Resurrection as the Context:
- He showed himself then to the disciples. What is Himself? The Head of His Church. The Church was foreseen by Him as in you to be throughout the world, by the disciples it was not yet seen. He showed the Head, He promised the Body.
- And He said unto them. What? That thus it behooved. That thus it is written, and thus it behooved. What? That Christ should suffer, and rise from the dead the third day. And this they saw, they saw Him suffering, they saw Him hanging, they saw Him with them alive after His resurrection. What then did they not see? The Body, that is, the Church. Him they saw, her they saw not. They saw the Bridegroom, the Bride yet lay hid. Let him promise her too. Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. This is the Bridegroom, what of the Bride? And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His Name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. This the disciples did not yet see: they did not yet see the Church throughout all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. They saw the Head, and they believed the Head touching the Body. By this which they saw, they believed that which they saw not. We too are like to them: we see something which they saw not, and something we do not see which they did see. What do we see, which they saw not? The Church throughout all nations. What do we not see, which they saw? Christ present in the flesh. As they saw Him, and believed concerning the Body, so do we see the Body; let us believe concerning the Head. Let what we have respectively seen help us. The sight of Christ helped them to believe the future Church: the sight of the Church helps us to believe that Christ has risen. Their faith was made complete, and ours is made complete also. Their faith was made complete from the sight of the Head, ours is made complete by the sight of the Body. Christ was made known to them wholly, and to us is He so made known: but He was not seen wholly by them, nor by us has He been wholly seen. By them the Head was seen, the Body believed. By us the Body has been seen, the Head believed. Yet to none is Christ lacking: in all He is complete, though to this day His Body remains imperfect. (Sermon 66)
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 6…
If we are to take those words of Augustine to be literal, we would come to the following conclusion:
A.) Augustine believed that only Christ’s head was risen from the dead and not His Body.
B.) The Body of Christ will soon be given as the Church
You and I would disagree with this and would disagree that Augustine literally meant this. But in speaking of the Resurrection, why does he go into great deal about the Body of Christ being the Church? Because he is emphasizing unity. Augustine literally believed that Christ was present to them bodily (head and body – which he even emphasizes when speaking about Christ’s flesh being seen) and yet at the same time he sounds like as if he is saying that Christ’s Head is risen and His Body will soon be the Church. If we are to be versed in scripture, we can come to the conclusion that the Head is the WHOLE Christ and the Body is the Church in a figurative way. In a literal way, the HEAD and BODY cannot be separated for Christ rose Bodily. So the first one is symbolic and emphasizes a figurative language and focuses on unity while the second one is reality. Here, we find Augustine having a twofold idea regarding the resurrection. Just because he uses symbolic language in regards to the Resurrection (His body not rising but only His head rising and His body is really the Church), does NOT mean that Augustine is denying the Bodily Resurrection of Christ in a literal way. In the same way then, just because Augustine is talking about the bread and wine as being the members of the church on the altar, does NOT mean that Augustine is denying a literal BP of Christ in the Eucharist. We can show quotes of Augustine holding on to both ideas.
This symbolic and figurative way of speaking can be found throughout Augustine’s writings on the Head (being Christ) and the Body of Christ (being the church). For example:
Because Christ Himself speaks in his holy ones, the Apostle
says:
7 Do you seek a proof of the Christ who speaks
in me?’ And although he says: 'Neither he who plants is
anything, nor he who waters; but God who gives the growth/
because he wished God to be loved in him and not himself,
nevertheless he acknowledges the services of certain Galatians
in the words: ‘You received me as an angel of God, even as
Christ Jesus.Hence, in all His saints is He to be cherished
who says: I was hungry and you gave me to eat.’
**He does not say 'You gave them to eat/ but ‘You gave me to
eat.’ Such is the love of the Head for His Body! **
-Sermon 197
Continued in part 7…
If we are to take those words of Augustine to be literal, we would come to the following conclusion:
A.) Augustine believed that only Christ’s head was risen from the dead and not His Body.
B.) The Body of Christ will soon be given as the Church
You and I would disagree with this and would disagree that Augustine literally meant this. But in speaking of the Resurrection, why does he go into great deal about the Body of Christ being the Church? Because he is emphasizing unity. Augustine literally believed that Christ was present to them bodily (head and body – which he even emphasizes when speaking about Christ’s flesh being seen) and yet at the same time he sounds like as if he is saying that Christ’s Head is risen and His Body will soon be the Church. If we are to be versed in scripture, we can come to the conclusion that the Head is the WHOLE Christ and the Body is the Church in a figurative way. In a literal way, the HEAD and BODY cannot be separated for Christ rose Bodily. So the first one is symbolic and emphasizes a figurative language and focuses on unity while the second one is reality. Here, we find Augustine having a twofold idea regarding the resurrection. Just because he uses symbolic language in regards to the Resurrection (His body not rising but only His head rising and His body is really the Church), does NOT mean that Augustine is denying the Bodily Resurrection of Christ in a literal way. In the same way then, just because Augustine is talking about the bread and wine as being the members of the church on the altar, does NOT mean that Augustine is denying a literal BP of Christ in the Eucharist. We can show quotes of Augustine holding on to both ideas.
This symbolic and figurative way of speaking can be found throughout Augustine’s writings on the Head (being Christ) and the Body of Christ (being the church). For example:
- Help me, O Lord my God: O save me according to Your mercy Psalm 108:25. This may be referred to the whole, both to the Head and to the body: to the Head, owing to His having taken the form of a servant; to the body, on account of the servants themselves. For He might even in them have said unto God, Help Me: and, O save Me: as in them He said unto Paul, Why do you persecute Me? Acts 9:4 The following words, according to Your mercy, describe grace given gratuitously, not according to the merit of works. (Exp on the Psalms 109:25)
Because Christ Himself speaks in his holy ones, the Apostle
says:
7 Do you seek a proof of the Christ who speaks
in me?’ And although he says: 'Neither he who plants is
anything, nor he who waters; but God who gives the growth/
because he wished God to be loved in him and not himself,
nevertheless he acknowledges the services of certain Galatians
in the words: ‘You received me as an angel of God, even as
Christ Jesus.Hence, in all His saints is He to be cherished
who says: I was hungry and you gave me to eat.’
**He does not say 'You gave them to eat/ but ‘You gave me to
eat.’ Such is the love of the Head for His Body! **
-Sermon 197
Continued in part 7…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 7…
Let’s move on to Augustine’s Exposition of Psalm 141:2-4. We will first deal with the first passage:
With that premises established as to what the Body of Christ is (the Church), Augustine goes on in paragraph 3 to say the following:
Notice in the first paragraph, he talks about the martyrs of the church being the Body of Christ. When you come to the 2nd paragraph (paragraph 3), we can understand what Augustine means by “Still we too are figured there. For what of Him hung upon the tree, save what He took of us?” and that meaning the martyrs (that he talked about in paragraph 2) and also the Church (which is the Body of Christ offered up to the Father as a sacrifice).
Continued in part 8…
Let’s move on to Augustine’s Exposition of Psalm 141:2-4. We will first deal with the first passage:
- Lord, I have cried unto You, hear Thou me Psalm 140:1. This we all can say. This not I alone say: whole Christ says it. But it is said rather in the name of the Body: for He too, when He was here and bore our flesh, prayed; and when He prayed, drops of blood streamed down from His whole Body. So is it written in the Gospel: Jesus prayed earnestly, and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood. Luke 22:44 What is this flowing of sweat from His whole Body, but the suffering of martyrs from the whole Church? Listen unto the voice of my prayer, while I cry unto You. You thought the business of crying already finished, when you said, I have cried unto You. You have cried; yet think not yourself safe. If tribulation be finished, crying is finished: but if tribulation remain for the Church, for the Body of Christ, even to the end of the world, let it not only say, I have cried unto You, but also, Listen unto the voice of my prayer.
With that premises established as to what the Body of Christ is (the Church), Augustine goes on in paragraph 3 to say the following:
- Let my prayer be set forth in Your sight as incense, and the lifting up of my hands an evening sacrifice Psalm 140:2. That this is wont to be understood of the Head Himself, every Christian acknowledges. For when the day was now sinking towards evening, the Lord upon the Cross laid down His life to take it again, John 10:17 did not lose it against His will. Still we too are figured there. For what of Him hung upon the tree, save what He took of us? And how can it be that the Father should leave and abandon His only begotten Son, especially when He is one God with Him? Yet, fixing our weakness upon the Cross, where, as the Apostle says, our old man is crucified with Him, Romans 6:6 He cried out in the voice of that our old man, Why have You forsaken Me? That then is the evening sacrifice, the Passion of the Lord, the Cross of the Lord, the offering of a salutary Victim, the whole burnt offering acceptable to God. That evening sacrifice produced, in His Resurrection, a morning offering. Prayer then, purely directed from a faithful heart, rises like incense from a hallowed altar. Nought is more delightful than the odour of the Lord: such odour let all have who believed.
Notice in the first paragraph, he talks about the martyrs of the church being the Body of Christ. When you come to the 2nd paragraph (paragraph 3), we can understand what Augustine means by “Still we too are figured there. For what of Him hung upon the tree, save what He took of us?” and that meaning the martyrs (that he talked about in paragraph 2) and also the Church (which is the Body of Christ offered up to the Father as a sacrifice).
Continued in part 8…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 8…
In paragraph 4, he goes on to say:
We move on to yet another Sermon of Augustine:
In paragraph 4, he goes on to say:
- …Set, O Lord, a watch before my mouth, and a door of restraint around my lips Psalm 140:3. He said not a barrier of restraint, but a door of restraint. A door is opened as well as shut. If then it be a door, let it be both opened and shut; opened, to confession of sin; closed, to excusing sin. So will it be a door of restraint, not of ruin. For what does this door of restraint profit us? What does Christ pray in the name of His Body? That Thou turn not aside My heart to wicked words Psalm 140:4. What is, My heart? The heart of My Church; the heart, that is, of My Body…
We move on to yet another Sermon of Augustine:
- Your faith, dearly beloved, is not ignorant, and I know that you have so learned by the teaching of that Master from heaven, in whom you have placed your hope, that our Lord Jesus Christ, who has now suffered for us and risen again, is the Head of the Church, and the Church is His Body, and that in His Body the unity of the members and the bond of charity is, as it were, its sound health. But whosoever grows cold in charity, has become enfeebled in the Body of Christ. But He who has already exalted our Head, is able also to make even the feeble members whole; provided, that is, that they be not cut off by excessive impiety, but adhere to the Body until they be made whole. For whatsoever yet adheres to the body, is not beyond hope of healing; whereas that which has been cut off, can neither be in process of curing, nor be healed. Since then He is the Head of the Church, and the Church is His Body, Whole Christ is both the Head and the Body. He has already risen again. We have therefore the Head in heaven. Our Head intercedes for us. Our Head without sin and without death, now propitiates God for our sins; that we too at the end rising again, and changed into heavenly glory, may follow our Head. For where the Head is, there are the rest of the members also. But while we are here, we are members; let us not despair, for we shall follow our Head.
- For consider, Brethren, the love of this our Head. He is now in heaven, yet does He suffer here, as long as His Church suffers here. Here Christ is hungered, here He is thirsty, is naked, is a stranger, is sick, is in prison. For whatsoever His Body suffers here, He has said that Himself suffers; and at the end, severing off this His Body to the right hand, and severing the rest by whom He is now trodden under foot to the left, He will say to those on the right hand, Come, you blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the beginning of the world. For what deservings? For I was an hungred, and you gave Me meat; and so He goes over the rest, as if He had Himself received; to such a degree that they, not understanding it, make answer and say, Lord, when saw we You an hungred, a stranger, and in prison? And He says to them, Forasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of Mine, you have done it unto Me. So also in our own body, the head is above, the feet are on the earth; yet in any crowding and throng of men, when any one treads on your foot, does not the head say, You are treading upon me? No one has trodden on your head, or on your tongue; it is above, in safety, no harm has happened unto it; and yet because by the bond of charity there is unity from the head even to the feet, the tongue does not separate itself therefrom, but says, You are treading upon me; when no one has touched it. As then the tongue, which no one has touched, says, You are treading upon me; so Christ, the Head, which no one treads on, said, I was an hungred, and you gave Me meat. And to them who did not so, He said, I was an hungred, and you gave Me no meat. And how did He finish? Thus; These shall go into everlasting burning, but the righteous into life eternal.
- When our Lord then was speaking on this occasion, He said, that He is the Shepherd, He said also that He is the Door. You find them both in that place, both I am the Door and I am the Shepherd. In the Head He is the Door, the Shepherd in the Body. For He says to Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; Peter, do you love Me? (Sermon 87)
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 9…
I don’t think I need to go into much greater detail about this sermon because my theory here is the same as the above ones. Notice the emphasis on UNITY when speaking about the Body of Christ. Also, notice the REALISM of Augustine when speaking about Christ’s Body being the Church as if His Body is LITERALLY the Church. For Augustine (and should be for us as well), there is some sort of MYSTICAL REALITY to this whole notion which is taken right out of Scripture.
And so we come to the point of all of this which I am going to summarize now. My point is, we have to be consistent with interpreting Augustine. We cannot pick and choose what we want him to think was literal and what we want him to think was figurative based on our understanding of things in our day. We cannot let our biases get in the way. Again, one can accuse me of doing the same, but I will show why that is not the case here. So let me go ahead and summarize and you will see the consistency of my theory and belief that Augustine held to a RBP of Christ.
If we are to take Augustine’s symbolic explanation of Sermon 227 and 272 as the people being the Body of Christ, then we would need to be consistent and come up with the following conclusions on what Augustine believed:
1.) That Christ’s resurrected Body is really the Church
2.) That Christ’s Body did not physically ascend into heaven but only His Head did and His Body is still here on earth as the Church.
3.) That the drops of blood from Christ’s Body is really the blood of the Martyrs who were in the Church.
4.) That the Body of Christ (the Church) was crucified along with the Head of Christ on the cross.
5.) That when we help people, we are LITERALLY helping the Body of Christ, which is the Church.
These theories were NOT mean to take away from the realistic and literal beliefs of what these 5 things represent. So if we are going to take those figurative understanding of what is REAL and apply them the 5 things mentioned above, then we would come to a conclusion that Augustine believed:
1.) That Christ’s LITERAL Body was resurrected PHYSICALLY
2.) Christ’s Body LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY ascended into Heaven along with His Head.
3.) That the drops of blood from Christ’s Body were LITERAL and REAL blood drops from His Body.
4.) That the PHYSICAL Body of Christ was the only “Body” crucified on the cross.
5.) That when we help people, we are not LITERALLY helping the BODY of CHRIST which is in Heaven, but we are helping the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST which is here on earth.
And if we are going to be consistent with that train of thought, then we would conclude the following of sermons 227 and 272:
Just because we have a figurative understanding of the bread and wine being the Body of Christ, does NOT mean it takes away from the LITERAL understanding of the bread and wine as the LITERAL Body and Blood of Christ. Just because Augustine uses figurative language, does not automatically take away the reality of the belief (as I have shown above using 5 examples from Augustine). The figurative does NOT deny the reality.
Now you may ask “well, the first five seem to be obvious ones and the Eucharist one is not so obvious…” Ah, yes! But taking your advice, we have to look at the way Augustine’s audience would and the way Augustine would think AT THAT TIME. In doing a lot of study on the Eucharistic theology of his time, I have come to the conclusion that (as mentioned above) the emphasis on the Eucharist is the Unity of the Church but a belief in RP is still there. To you, since you do not hold to the Eucharist as being the RP of Christ, you would take Augustine’s figurative interpretation of the bread and wine to being the ONLY interpretation and you would conclude that the reality is not there (RP of Christ). I would argue that this is not the case for Augustine nor for the readers (or listeners) of Augustine at his time when he speaks of figurative interpretation of the bread and wine. JUST as you would see the first 5 as being figurative and yet still hold to a literal interpretation and literal understanding of them in a REAL way, the people of the time would do the same with the Eucharist. Just because there is a figurative explanation of what the bread and wine is (which is really there to emphasize unity and NOT to take away from the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist) does NOT mean that a belief in the reality is taken away.
Now, we move on to the sermons. Is there anything in the sermons that would point to a twofold understanding of them or does Augustine only give us one way to look at them? One does not need to go outside of these sermons to show that Augustine had a LITERAL understanding of the bread and wine being the Body and Blood of Christ and also a figurative understanding of the bread and wine being the members of the Body of Christ.
Continued in part 10…
I don’t think I need to go into much greater detail about this sermon because my theory here is the same as the above ones. Notice the emphasis on UNITY when speaking about the Body of Christ. Also, notice the REALISM of Augustine when speaking about Christ’s Body being the Church as if His Body is LITERALLY the Church. For Augustine (and should be for us as well), there is some sort of MYSTICAL REALITY to this whole notion which is taken right out of Scripture.
And so we come to the point of all of this which I am going to summarize now. My point is, we have to be consistent with interpreting Augustine. We cannot pick and choose what we want him to think was literal and what we want him to think was figurative based on our understanding of things in our day. We cannot let our biases get in the way. Again, one can accuse me of doing the same, but I will show why that is not the case here. So let me go ahead and summarize and you will see the consistency of my theory and belief that Augustine held to a RBP of Christ.
If we are to take Augustine’s symbolic explanation of Sermon 227 and 272 as the people being the Body of Christ, then we would need to be consistent and come up with the following conclusions on what Augustine believed:
1.) That Christ’s resurrected Body is really the Church
2.) That Christ’s Body did not physically ascend into heaven but only His Head did and His Body is still here on earth as the Church.
3.) That the drops of blood from Christ’s Body is really the blood of the Martyrs who were in the Church.
4.) That the Body of Christ (the Church) was crucified along with the Head of Christ on the cross.
5.) That when we help people, we are LITERALLY helping the Body of Christ, which is the Church.
These theories were NOT mean to take away from the realistic and literal beliefs of what these 5 things represent. So if we are going to take those figurative understanding of what is REAL and apply them the 5 things mentioned above, then we would come to a conclusion that Augustine believed:
1.) That Christ’s LITERAL Body was resurrected PHYSICALLY
2.) Christ’s Body LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY ascended into Heaven along with His Head.
3.) That the drops of blood from Christ’s Body were LITERAL and REAL blood drops from His Body.
4.) That the PHYSICAL Body of Christ was the only “Body” crucified on the cross.
5.) That when we help people, we are not LITERALLY helping the BODY of CHRIST which is in Heaven, but we are helping the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST which is here on earth.
And if we are going to be consistent with that train of thought, then we would conclude the following of sermons 227 and 272:
Just because we have a figurative understanding of the bread and wine being the Body of Christ, does NOT mean it takes away from the LITERAL understanding of the bread and wine as the LITERAL Body and Blood of Christ. Just because Augustine uses figurative language, does not automatically take away the reality of the belief (as I have shown above using 5 examples from Augustine). The figurative does NOT deny the reality.
Now you may ask “well, the first five seem to be obvious ones and the Eucharist one is not so obvious…” Ah, yes! But taking your advice, we have to look at the way Augustine’s audience would and the way Augustine would think AT THAT TIME. In doing a lot of study on the Eucharistic theology of his time, I have come to the conclusion that (as mentioned above) the emphasis on the Eucharist is the Unity of the Church but a belief in RP is still there. To you, since you do not hold to the Eucharist as being the RP of Christ, you would take Augustine’s figurative interpretation of the bread and wine to being the ONLY interpretation and you would conclude that the reality is not there (RP of Christ). I would argue that this is not the case for Augustine nor for the readers (or listeners) of Augustine at his time when he speaks of figurative interpretation of the bread and wine. JUST as you would see the first 5 as being figurative and yet still hold to a literal interpretation and literal understanding of them in a REAL way, the people of the time would do the same with the Eucharist. Just because there is a figurative explanation of what the bread and wine is (which is really there to emphasize unity and NOT to take away from the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist) does NOT mean that a belief in the reality is taken away.
Now, we move on to the sermons. Is there anything in the sermons that would point to a twofold understanding of them or does Augustine only give us one way to look at them? One does not need to go outside of these sermons to show that Augustine had a LITERAL understanding of the bread and wine being the Body and Blood of Christ and also a figurative understanding of the bread and wine being the members of the Body of Christ.
Continued in part 10…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 10…
Let’s first take a look at Sermon 227:
“I promised you, who have now been baptized, I promised you a sermon in
which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon,
and where 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, being blessed by the Word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, being blessed by the Word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine, the Lord Christ gives to
you His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins."
THAT is the reality and the literal understanding of the bread and wine. What follows (the “how”) is the figurative way of understanding the words of Augustine (again, consistency). But you may ask, “How do YOU know that he is speaking literally here? Doesn’t he ask “HOW” and then explains himself and totally contradicts the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist?” Yes, it may appear that way, doesn’t it? So how can I be so sure that this here is twofold and the latter (people being the Body of Christ) does not make the former (RBP of Christ) void? Examine the sermon itself and what I have quoted above. Notice the literal and realistic language, “That Bread which you see on the altar, being blessed by the Word of God, IS the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather what is in that chalice, being blessed by the Word of God, IS the Blood of Christ.” That’s not even the only literal part and not even the BEST place to quote to show that Augustine is speaking literally here. What else shows a literal understanding? “…Though that BREAD and WINE, the Lord Christ gives to you HIS BODY and BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” That’s the KEY right there. He is relating the Body and Blood in that bread and wine to the SAME Body and Blood that was crucified for us on the cross; for he says “which HE POURDED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” So let’s shift our focus back to consistency. If you believe that Augustine’s “how” makes the first part symbolic, then you have to be consistent and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ did not literally save us from sin on the cross, but it was US as the members of Christ who were on the cross and died. Why? Because the latter “how” (in your understanding) makes void the former “what” in what the bread and wine really means to Augustine. If we are going to be consistent, then we would have to interpret the WHOLE “Bread IS Body and wine Is Blood of Christ which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins” to be in reference to the Body of Christ (the Church).
I don’t think that you would go that far in even admitting that Augustine is (even symbolically) saying that it was our body and our blood that was shed for our forgiveness of sins. With that said, we can conclude that the “how” is not a literal “how” but a more figurative “how” which is there to emphasize UNITY and not to literally emphasize a “how”. Again, remember, if you are going to admit that the figurative language and interpretation of Augustine makes void the reality of the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist, then you have to be consistent and admit that Augustine denied a real Bodily Resurrection of Christ, a Bodily crucifixion of Christ, Christ’s body did not really sweat blood, but the Church did in a certain manner, etc.
And now Sermon 272. I do not need to go into much detail about this, for my answer here is very similar to the one above in regards to Sermon 229. Is there a twofold understanding here as well? Does the figurative take away from the literal and realistic? Let’s look at the language used:
One thing is seen, another is to be understood. What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard. So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.
Notice the very first line “One thing is seen, another is to be understood.” Right away, Augustine talks about two things. The question is, what are we seeing and what are we to understand when we see such things? He answers the question before he even gets to the “how” (which, again, is to emphasize unity, not to take away from the RBP). So what is the answer to “One thing is seen”? The answer is “So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you.” One would agree that Augustine, at this point, has only explained the “what you can see” and has yet to explain the “another is to be understood”. Before he even gets to the “how”, he explains what it is to understand the meaning of the bread and wine. His explanation of “what is to be understood” is “BUT AS FOR WHAT YOUR FAITH ASKS YOU TO BE INSTRUCTED ABOUT, THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE CUP THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” He has instructed them of the reality of the bread and wine being the Body and Blood of Christ and THAT is what is to be understood. He goes on to explain the “how” which in your opinion should explain and emphasize the RBP of Christ. I don’t see it that away at all. He has ALREADY told them the bread and cup is the Body and Blood of Christ. Considering the historical context of Augustine, his “how” is to emphasize unity and is NOT meant to take away from the reality. Notice what he says, which further tells us that these things which are to be seen point to a realistic understanding, “…but what it was, what it meant, OF WHAT GREAT REALITY IT CONTAINED the sacrament…”
Continued in Part 11…
Let’s first take a look at Sermon 227:
“I promised you, who have now been baptized, I promised you a sermon in
which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon,
and where 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, being blessed by the Word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, being blessed by the Word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine, the Lord Christ gives to
you His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins."
THAT is the reality and the literal understanding of the bread and wine. What follows (the “how”) is the figurative way of understanding the words of Augustine (again, consistency). But you may ask, “How do YOU know that he is speaking literally here? Doesn’t he ask “HOW” and then explains himself and totally contradicts the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist?” Yes, it may appear that way, doesn’t it? So how can I be so sure that this here is twofold and the latter (people being the Body of Christ) does not make the former (RBP of Christ) void? Examine the sermon itself and what I have quoted above. Notice the literal and realistic language, “That Bread which you see on the altar, being blessed by the Word of God, IS the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather what is in that chalice, being blessed by the Word of God, IS the Blood of Christ.” That’s not even the only literal part and not even the BEST place to quote to show that Augustine is speaking literally here. What else shows a literal understanding? “…Though that BREAD and WINE, the Lord Christ gives to you HIS BODY and BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” That’s the KEY right there. He is relating the Body and Blood in that bread and wine to the SAME Body and Blood that was crucified for us on the cross; for he says “which HE POURDED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” So let’s shift our focus back to consistency. If you believe that Augustine’s “how” makes the first part symbolic, then you have to be consistent and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ did not literally save us from sin on the cross, but it was US as the members of Christ who were on the cross and died. Why? Because the latter “how” (in your understanding) makes void the former “what” in what the bread and wine really means to Augustine. If we are going to be consistent, then we would have to interpret the WHOLE “Bread IS Body and wine Is Blood of Christ which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins” to be in reference to the Body of Christ (the Church).
I don’t think that you would go that far in even admitting that Augustine is (even symbolically) saying that it was our body and our blood that was shed for our forgiveness of sins. With that said, we can conclude that the “how” is not a literal “how” but a more figurative “how” which is there to emphasize UNITY and not to literally emphasize a “how”. Again, remember, if you are going to admit that the figurative language and interpretation of Augustine makes void the reality of the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist, then you have to be consistent and admit that Augustine denied a real Bodily Resurrection of Christ, a Bodily crucifixion of Christ, Christ’s body did not really sweat blood, but the Church did in a certain manner, etc.
And now Sermon 272. I do not need to go into much detail about this, for my answer here is very similar to the one above in regards to Sermon 229. Is there a twofold understanding here as well? Does the figurative take away from the literal and realistic? Let’s look at the language used:
One thing is seen, another is to be understood. What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard. So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.
Notice the very first line “One thing is seen, another is to be understood.” Right away, Augustine talks about two things. The question is, what are we seeing and what are we to understand when we see such things? He answers the question before he even gets to the “how” (which, again, is to emphasize unity, not to take away from the RBP). So what is the answer to “One thing is seen”? The answer is “So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you.” One would agree that Augustine, at this point, has only explained the “what you can see” and has yet to explain the “another is to be understood”. Before he even gets to the “how”, he explains what it is to understand the meaning of the bread and wine. His explanation of “what is to be understood” is “BUT AS FOR WHAT YOUR FAITH ASKS YOU TO BE INSTRUCTED ABOUT, THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE CUP THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” He has instructed them of the reality of the bread and wine being the Body and Blood of Christ and THAT is what is to be understood. He goes on to explain the “how” which in your opinion should explain and emphasize the RBP of Christ. I don’t see it that away at all. He has ALREADY told them the bread and cup is the Body and Blood of Christ. Considering the historical context of Augustine, his “how” is to emphasize unity and is NOT meant to take away from the reality. Notice what he says, which further tells us that these things which are to be seen point to a realistic understanding, “…but what it was, what it meant, OF WHAT GREAT REALITY IT CONTAINED the sacrament…”
Continued in Part 11…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 11…
You have admitted that the “how” for Augustine is figurative and not literal. And you have come to the conclusion that since it is figurative, then Augustine held to either a symbolic or spiritual understanding of the Eucharist. For you to admit that, gives a great deal of problem with the words “OF WHAT GREAT REALITY IT CONTAINED” because if you are to admit the members of Christ being the bread and wine in a symbolic way, then that contradicts the words of Augustine that the sacrament contains “A GREAT REALITY”. Reality would contradict the symbolism that is being forced and was never in Augustine’s thought when explaining the “how” just as it was never in Augustine’s thought in the previous 5 examples we have examined from Augustine. So then, we can conclude that:
Since the word “REALITY” contradicts the figurative interpretation of the “how”, one is forced to apply the “REALITY” to what follows, which is “THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE CUP THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.”
What about Sermon 229a? You quoted a Catholic author and made it appear as though he did not believe that Augustine believed in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist. That is not the case. I have read what he said in context and the author is saying exactly what I am saying. Augustine had a twofold understanding of the sacrament. One was figurative and one was literal. The author does not deny that Augustine believed in a RBP. If you continue reading from that same page, the author goes on to say “The transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ did not preoccupy Augustine the way it would the medieval tradition. For Augustine, TRANSFORMED BREAD AND WINE was but ONE-HALF OF THE MYSTERY: the other half, transformed people, was what especially concerned him…Augustine was fascinated by the dual meaning Paul gave the term “Body of Christ”: on the one hand, the people of God and, ON THE OTHER, THE EUCHARISTIC BREAD. Thus Augustine could assert bluntly: “The mystery that you are lies there on the table; it is your own mystery that you receive.” In other words, for Augustine, the Body of Christ appeared as a sort of DIPTCH: at once as people AND as “sanctified” bread. Moreover, THIS DOUBLE IMAGE was at once a fact and an exhortation, an indicative and an imperative. He encapsulated this in one of his most memorable aphorisms: BE WHAT YOU SEE, AND RECEIVE WHAT YOU ARE…Theologically, it enabled Augustine to hold together Paul’s DUAL IMAGE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST – at once the people of God AND THE “sanctified” bread – to show that the whole dynamic moved one towards BOTH a liturgical end –Eucharist—AND an ecclesiological one–UNITY” (Augustine and the Catechumenate by William Hamless, pages 318-320).
The author seems to agree with me that Augustine, in those sermons, was not concerned much with the RBP of Christ (although the belief is still stated on every single one of those sermons) but the emphasis was more on unity (and he notes the reasons for this which is due to the divisions between the Catholics and the Donatists).
But is this all we have from Augustine that shows a belief in a RBP of Christ? Absolutely not. We can point to Sermons and passages such as:
Sermon 234:
Nevertheless, my dearly beloved, remember
how the Lord Jesus wished those whose c
eyes were
held, that they should not recognize him/
3 to acknowledge
Him in the breaking of bread. (The faithful understand
what I am saying; they know Christ in the breaking of
bread. For, not all bread, but only that which receives the
blessing of Christ becomes the Body of Christ.)
And Sermon 235:
. . Ah, my brethren, where was it that the Lord wished to
be recognized? In the breaking of bread. We are safe; we
break bread, and we recognize the Lord. He did not wish
to be recognized except in that act, for the sake of us who
were not destined to see Him in the flesh but who, nevertheless,
would eat His flesh. Therefore, whoever you are who
are faithful, you for whom the title Christian is not an empty
name, you who do not enter this church without reason,
you who hear the word of God with sentiments of fear and
hope, let the breaking of bread bring consolation to you. The
absence of the Lord is not real absence; have faith, and He
whom you do not see is with you… . . You too, then, if you want to have life, do what they did in order to recognize the Lord. They showed him hospitality. The Lord, you see, was like someone who still had a long way to go, but they held him back. When they reached the place they were making for, they said, “Stay with us now, the day has faded toward evening.” Constrain the stranger, if you want to recognize the Savior. What had been lost through a lack of faith was restored through hospitality. So the Lord made himself present in the breaking of bread. Learn where to look for the Lord, learn where to have him, learn where to recognize him, that is, when you eat his body.
Continued in part 12…
You have admitted that the “how” for Augustine is figurative and not literal. And you have come to the conclusion that since it is figurative, then Augustine held to either a symbolic or spiritual understanding of the Eucharist. For you to admit that, gives a great deal of problem with the words “OF WHAT GREAT REALITY IT CONTAINED” because if you are to admit the members of Christ being the bread and wine in a symbolic way, then that contradicts the words of Augustine that the sacrament contains “A GREAT REALITY”. Reality would contradict the symbolism that is being forced and was never in Augustine’s thought when explaining the “how” just as it was never in Augustine’s thought in the previous 5 examples we have examined from Augustine. So then, we can conclude that:
Since the word “REALITY” contradicts the figurative interpretation of the “how”, one is forced to apply the “REALITY” to what follows, which is “THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE CUP THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.”
What about Sermon 229a? You quoted a Catholic author and made it appear as though he did not believe that Augustine believed in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist. That is not the case. I have read what he said in context and the author is saying exactly what I am saying. Augustine had a twofold understanding of the sacrament. One was figurative and one was literal. The author does not deny that Augustine believed in a RBP. If you continue reading from that same page, the author goes on to say “The transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ did not preoccupy Augustine the way it would the medieval tradition. For Augustine, TRANSFORMED BREAD AND WINE was but ONE-HALF OF THE MYSTERY: the other half, transformed people, was what especially concerned him…Augustine was fascinated by the dual meaning Paul gave the term “Body of Christ”: on the one hand, the people of God and, ON THE OTHER, THE EUCHARISTIC BREAD. Thus Augustine could assert bluntly: “The mystery that you are lies there on the table; it is your own mystery that you receive.” In other words, for Augustine, the Body of Christ appeared as a sort of DIPTCH: at once as people AND as “sanctified” bread. Moreover, THIS DOUBLE IMAGE was at once a fact and an exhortation, an indicative and an imperative. He encapsulated this in one of his most memorable aphorisms: BE WHAT YOU SEE, AND RECEIVE WHAT YOU ARE…Theologically, it enabled Augustine to hold together Paul’s DUAL IMAGE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST – at once the people of God AND THE “sanctified” bread – to show that the whole dynamic moved one towards BOTH a liturgical end –Eucharist—AND an ecclesiological one–UNITY” (Augustine and the Catechumenate by William Hamless, pages 318-320).
The author seems to agree with me that Augustine, in those sermons, was not concerned much with the RBP of Christ (although the belief is still stated on every single one of those sermons) but the emphasis was more on unity (and he notes the reasons for this which is due to the divisions between the Catholics and the Donatists).
But is this all we have from Augustine that shows a belief in a RBP of Christ? Absolutely not. We can point to Sermons and passages such as:
Sermon 234:
Nevertheless, my dearly beloved, remember
how the Lord Jesus wished those whose c
eyes were
held, that they should not recognize him/
3 to acknowledge
Him in the breaking of bread. (The faithful understand
what I am saying; they know Christ in the breaking of
bread. For, not all bread, but only that which receives the
blessing of Christ becomes the Body of Christ.)
And Sermon 235:
. . Ah, my brethren, where was it that the Lord wished to
be recognized? In the breaking of bread. We are safe; we
break bread, and we recognize the Lord. He did not wish
to be recognized except in that act, for the sake of us who
were not destined to see Him in the flesh but who, nevertheless,
would eat His flesh. Therefore, whoever you are who
are faithful, you for whom the title Christian is not an empty
name, you who do not enter this church without reason,
you who hear the word of God with sentiments of fear and
hope, let the breaking of bread bring consolation to you. The
absence of the Lord is not real absence; have faith, and He
whom you do not see is with you… . . You too, then, if you want to have life, do what they did in order to recognize the Lord. They showed him hospitality. The Lord, you see, was like someone who still had a long way to go, but they held him back. When they reached the place they were making for, they said, “Stay with us now, the day has faded toward evening.” Constrain the stranger, if you want to recognize the Savior. What had been lost through a lack of faith was restored through hospitality. So the Lord made himself present in the breaking of bread. Learn where to look for the Lord, learn where to have him, learn where to recognize him, that is, when you eat his body.
Continued in part 12…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 12:
“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
We haven’t gone too much into this one (or at all) but in my opinion, this one is the most literal and most realistic of all and kills the argument that “Augustine believed the bread and wine to be the Church on the altar and nothing else.” Here, we see nothing about the Church being carried in Christ’s hands. He literally says “CHRIST was carried in His own hands, when referring to HIS BODY, He said: ‘This is my body.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.”
Notice, he says CHRIST was carried in His own hands (not the Church), when He said “THIS IS MY BODY”.
Many people quote that part of the Exposition and stop. There is a lot more about the Eucharist said in this Exposition. Once one looks at what Augustine says here, it would be difficult to deny that Augustine is speaking in a figurative or symbolic way. The language is striking.
Let’s go to paragraph 3 of this Exposition:
Let’s move on to paragraph 9 of the same Exposition on the Psalm:
…For some spiritual person in the Body of Christ, or even our Lord Jesus Christ Himself according to the flesh, the Head exhorting His Own Members, says; what? Approach unto Him, and be ye lightened. Or rather some spiritual Christian invites us to approach to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But let us approach to Him and be lightened; not as the Jews approached to Him, that they might be darkened; for they approached to Him that they might crucify Him: let us approach to Him that we may receive His Body and Blood. They by Him crucified were darkened; we by eating and drinking The Crucified are lightened. (paragraph 9)
This deserves a little bit of a commentary. Notice the comparison and connection being made by Augustine regarding the Jews approaching Christ to crucify Him (literally, not symbolically) and regarding us who approach Christ today to receive His Body and Blood (since the former was literal, there is no reason to believe that the latter is symbolic). He doesn’t stop there. He brings it back to the Jews and says “They by Him crucified were darkened…” the language there is literal since everyone would agree that Augustine believed that Christ was LITERALLY crucified and not symbolically. He continues and says “WE by EATING AND DRINKING THE CRUCIFIED are lightened.” They crucified His Body and Blood in a literal fashion and were darkened, we EAT THAT CRUCIFIED BODY AND BLOOD in a literal fashion and are lightened. That basically sums up what Augustine is saying here. If we are going to admit the first one is literal, there is no reason to believe that Augustine is moving from literal to a symbolic language when talking about eating the Crucified. Remember, this is the same psalm where Augustine talks about “Christ carried Himself in His own hands when He said ‘this is my Body’”.
Continued in Part 13…
“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
We haven’t gone too much into this one (or at all) but in my opinion, this one is the most literal and most realistic of all and kills the argument that “Augustine believed the bread and wine to be the Church on the altar and nothing else.” Here, we see nothing about the Church being carried in Christ’s hands. He literally says “CHRIST was carried in His own hands, when referring to HIS BODY, He said: ‘This is my body.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.”
Notice, he says CHRIST was carried in His own hands (not the Church), when He said “THIS IS MY BODY”.
Many people quote that part of the Exposition and stop. There is a lot more about the Eucharist said in this Exposition. Once one looks at what Augustine says here, it would be difficult to deny that Augustine is speaking in a figurative or symbolic way. The language is striking.
Let’s go to paragraph 3 of this Exposition:
- But who is it that blesses the Lord at all times, except the humble in heart. For very humility taught our Lord in His Own Body and Blood: because when He commends His Own Body and Blood, He commends His Humility, in that which is written in this history, in that seeming madness of David, which we have passed by…
Let’s move on to paragraph 9 of the same Exposition on the Psalm:
…For some spiritual person in the Body of Christ, or even our Lord Jesus Christ Himself according to the flesh, the Head exhorting His Own Members, says; what? Approach unto Him, and be ye lightened. Or rather some spiritual Christian invites us to approach to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But let us approach to Him and be lightened; not as the Jews approached to Him, that they might be darkened; for they approached to Him that they might crucify Him: let us approach to Him that we may receive His Body and Blood. They by Him crucified were darkened; we by eating and drinking The Crucified are lightened. (paragraph 9)
This deserves a little bit of a commentary. Notice the comparison and connection being made by Augustine regarding the Jews approaching Christ to crucify Him (literally, not symbolically) and regarding us who approach Christ today to receive His Body and Blood (since the former was literal, there is no reason to believe that the latter is symbolic). He doesn’t stop there. He brings it back to the Jews and says “They by Him crucified were darkened…” the language there is literal since everyone would agree that Augustine believed that Christ was LITERALLY crucified and not symbolically. He continues and says “WE by EATING AND DRINKING THE CRUCIFIED are lightened.” They crucified His Body and Blood in a literal fashion and were darkened, we EAT THAT CRUCIFIED BODY AND BLOOD in a literal fashion and are lightened. That basically sums up what Augustine is saying here. If we are going to admit the first one is literal, there is no reason to believe that Augustine is moving from literal to a symbolic language when talking about eating the Crucified. Remember, this is the same psalm where Augustine talks about “Christ carried Himself in His own hands when He said ‘this is my Body’”.
Continued in Part 13…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 13:
The last one from this Psalm is from paragraph 24:
24. The death of sinners is the worst Psalm 33:21. Attend, Brethren, for the sake of those things which I said. Truly Great is the Lord, and His Mercy, truly Great is He who gave to us to eat His Body, wherein He suffered such great things, and His Blood to drink.
Moving on to other passages by Augustine…
“Was not Christ **IMMOLATED **only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is **IMMOLATED **for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)
Notice at first he says “WAS (past tense) not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very person?” He is obviously speaking about the Crucifixion here. He continues now to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and says “He IS (present tense) IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that CHRIST IS (present tense) BEING IMMOLATED.” This is clearly not a language of symbolism. He makes the connection between Christ’s Immolation on the cross with that of the Altar in the Eucharist.
Also, reading the context of paragraph 9 helps one to see that Augustine believed in a Real Presence of Christ. We can go into that as well if you’d like.
We can also take a look at Sermons 71 and 131 and see how Augustine interpreted John 6. We can look at the passages from Augustine that shows him believing the Eucharist is a sacrifice on the altar. This also has a double meaning. So you can quote passages that shows what Augustine means by sacrifice, but that was never Augustine’s intent to ignore the reality of the sacrifices on the altar.
Again, I took your advice and saw these passages being interpreted by the people at the time and not by the Catholic Church of today nor by the Protestant Church of today. THEY saw John 6 referring to the Eucharist (as many, many, many other Fathers did) and they would not ignore every single passage by Augustine interpreting John 6 as a Eucharistic chapter because of a little line in OCD III that is not even dealing with the Eucharist but dealing with interpretation of Scripture. The way he interpreted it was not meant to make void the other interpretations and it certainly was not meant to be the official interpretation of Augustine on John 6. He did not intend to make every other interpretation and commentary on John 6 that he wrote concerning the Eucharist to answer to OCD III. Also, OCD III does not contradict the Eucharistic theology of Augustine, it only affirms it. Although he wasn’t talking about the Eucharist in OCD III, we can still harmonize the two with no contradiction to the belief of the Real Presence by Augustine.
Also, compare the footstool passage that we have been discussing:
“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, **AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” **(Psalms 98:9)
With “On Sin and Merit 1:34” from Augustine:
The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than salvation, and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than life. Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: He saved us by the washing of regeneration? Titus 3:5 or from Peter’s statement: The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us? 1 Peter 3:21 And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; John 6:51 and The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world; John 6:51 and Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you? John 6:53 If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them.
Continued in 14…
The last one from this Psalm is from paragraph 24:
24. The death of sinners is the worst Psalm 33:21. Attend, Brethren, for the sake of those things which I said. Truly Great is the Lord, and His Mercy, truly Great is He who gave to us to eat His Body, wherein He suffered such great things, and His Blood to drink.
Moving on to other passages by Augustine…
“Was not Christ **IMMOLATED **only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is **IMMOLATED **for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)
Notice at first he says “WAS (past tense) not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very person?” He is obviously speaking about the Crucifixion here. He continues now to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and says “He IS (present tense) IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that CHRIST IS (present tense) BEING IMMOLATED.” This is clearly not a language of symbolism. He makes the connection between Christ’s Immolation on the cross with that of the Altar in the Eucharist.
Also, reading the context of paragraph 9 helps one to see that Augustine believed in a Real Presence of Christ. We can go into that as well if you’d like.
We can also take a look at Sermons 71 and 131 and see how Augustine interpreted John 6. We can look at the passages from Augustine that shows him believing the Eucharist is a sacrifice on the altar. This also has a double meaning. So you can quote passages that shows what Augustine means by sacrifice, but that was never Augustine’s intent to ignore the reality of the sacrifices on the altar.
Again, I took your advice and saw these passages being interpreted by the people at the time and not by the Catholic Church of today nor by the Protestant Church of today. THEY saw John 6 referring to the Eucharist (as many, many, many other Fathers did) and they would not ignore every single passage by Augustine interpreting John 6 as a Eucharistic chapter because of a little line in OCD III that is not even dealing with the Eucharist but dealing with interpretation of Scripture. The way he interpreted it was not meant to make void the other interpretations and it certainly was not meant to be the official interpretation of Augustine on John 6. He did not intend to make every other interpretation and commentary on John 6 that he wrote concerning the Eucharist to answer to OCD III. Also, OCD III does not contradict the Eucharistic theology of Augustine, it only affirms it. Although he wasn’t talking about the Eucharist in OCD III, we can still harmonize the two with no contradiction to the belief of the Real Presence by Augustine.
Also, compare the footstool passage that we have been discussing:
“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, **AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” **(Psalms 98:9)
With “On Sin and Merit 1:34” from Augustine:
The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than salvation, and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than life. Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: He saved us by the washing of regeneration? Titus 3:5 or from Peter’s statement: The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us? 1 Peter 3:21 And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; John 6:51 and The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world; John 6:51 and Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you? John 6:53 If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them.
Continued in 14…
L
lyrikal
Guest
Part 14…
As you very well know, in the Psalm, Augustine goes on to quote John 6 right after talking about “SALVATION” and “EATING THAT FLESH FOR SALVATION” and “NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS HE HAS FIRST WORSHIPPED”. Compare that with On Sin and Merit 1:34 where Augustine is talking about the Eucharist being a necessity for salvation and what does he quote to prove that? John 6. I don’t see how anyone can read that exposition on the Psalm by Augustine and come to a conclusion that Augustine is not talking about the Eucharist JUST because the word Eucharist is not there. This is a Protestant mindset and is something a modern Protestant may miss because he/she could be interpreting Augustine using their modern interpretation of John 6. But when we look at Augustine’s writings AS A WHOLE, the interperations of other Fathers on John 6, the belief of the people at the time of the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist, there would be no denying that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist there. Because in their days (and also in the Catholic Church), they believed that John 6 was about the Eucharist, they believed in the RBP of Christ and they adored the Eucharist as being Jesus Himself as Theodoret said in Dialogue 2:
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 have 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. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
So for me to interpret Augustine in that Psalm to be talking about the Eucharist, I am not doing that because of my Catholic bias. This is not a modern day interpretation and this is not me as a Catholic reading too much into what Augustine is saying. This is what the Early Church did and believed as well as the testimony of Theodoret states above.
Anyway, we can go on and on and show passage after passage from Augustine but I think this will suffice for now. I will be replying to your reply of my reply soon. I already have a reply in my head but will need to put it on “paper” and we will go from there.
May God bless, Radical.
As you very well know, in the Psalm, Augustine goes on to quote John 6 right after talking about “SALVATION” and “EATING THAT FLESH FOR SALVATION” and “NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS HE HAS FIRST WORSHIPPED”. Compare that with On Sin and Merit 1:34 where Augustine is talking about the Eucharist being a necessity for salvation and what does he quote to prove that? John 6. I don’t see how anyone can read that exposition on the Psalm by Augustine and come to a conclusion that Augustine is not talking about the Eucharist JUST because the word Eucharist is not there. This is a Protestant mindset and is something a modern Protestant may miss because he/she could be interpreting Augustine using their modern interpretation of John 6. But when we look at Augustine’s writings AS A WHOLE, the interperations of other Fathers on John 6, the belief of the people at the time of the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist, there would be no denying that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist there. Because in their days (and also in the Catholic Church), they believed that John 6 was about the Eucharist, they believed in the RBP of Christ and they adored the Eucharist as being Jesus Himself as Theodoret said in Dialogue 2:
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 have 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. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
So for me to interpret Augustine in that Psalm to be talking about the Eucharist, I am not doing that because of my Catholic bias. This is not a modern day interpretation and this is not me as a Catholic reading too much into what Augustine is saying. This is what the Early Church did and believed as well as the testimony of Theodoret states above.
Anyway, we can go on and on and show passage after passage from Augustine but I think this will suffice for now. I will be replying to your reply of my reply soon. I already have a reply in my head but will need to put it on “paper” and we will go from there.
May God bless, Radical.
- Status