February 02, 2006
St. Augustine and the Real Presence
There has been much discussion on this site about whether or not St. Augustine and other Early Fathers actually believed in the Real Presence. This article will focus specifically on St. Augustine.
Some have insisted that Augustine believed that the Eucharist was only a symbol or figure of Christ. It is important to point out that these individuals have used these words (i.e. symbol and figure) to imply that Augustine is saying that the Eucharistic elements are “not” Christ Himself, but rather a reminder of Christ. Some have said that there is “some” spiritual significance in the Eucharist but that the elements do not change materially. These views have provided some very stimulating discussion and insight into the various understandings of the Eucharist within the different Protestant religions.
The following is from the book The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist by Fr. James T. O’Connor. If you are genuinely interested in gaining a better understanding of the Church’s teaching and understanding of the Eucharist down through the ages, I highly recommend this book. This particular section is a bit lengthy but well worth reading…Enjoy!
St. Augustine
In the Apostolic Letter that Pope John Paul II issued on the occasion of the sixteen-hundredth anniversary of the Baptism of Augustine, the Pope made his own the following words of his predecessor, Paul VI:
Indeed, over and above the shining example he gives of the qualities common to all the Fathers, it may be said that all the thought currents of the past meet in his works and form the source that provides the whole doctrinal Tradition of succeeding ages. (69)
The statement is hardly an exaggeration. The person and work of Augustine have always played so large a part in the Church’s theology, especially in the West, that one can run the risk of overlooking the other Fathers. His thought is so faithful to the Tradition, so rich in insight, so persuasively expressed that, by way of imitation or reaction, he has influenced theologians up to and including our own day. Often men of totally opposed theological positions have appealed to the authority of Augustine to substantiate their own opinions.
In respect to the Eucharist, Augustine has left us a fairly extensive record of the liturgical practices with which he was familiar. This he does in a letter, written around 400, to a friend named Januarius. He records, for example, that the forty days of Lent should be observed, and he finds its meaning rooted in Scripture; that Easter was already celebrated with an octave of eight days; that Pentecost was a solemnity (or sacramentum), while Christmas was not. While admitting that it is not a universal custom, he encourages daily Eucharist and expresses his personal preference for a noble simplicity in the Liturgy. He also gives it as his opinion that the essentials of the Liturgy are to be governed by the practice of the entire Church, while the nonessentials may vary according to time and place. “For that which is not against faith or good morals should be considered as something indifferent and observed for the sake of social harmony [societatem] with those among whom one is living.” (70) This principle does not mean that he thought all liturgical or paraliturgical practices were of equal value. He did not, and of some of them he disapproved, but unless they violated the principles of faith and good morals they were to be tolerated. “For the Church of God, situated among much chaff and many weeds, tolerates many things, although she neither approves nor is silent about nor does those things that are contrary to faith and a moral life.” (71) Practices that are not sinful or against the Faith but are, nonetheless, abuses or capable of leading to problems with faith and good morals should be changed tactfully. He gives us an example of this in his approach to the “feasts of the dead”, a practice common and popular in North Africa in his time. It consisted of devout (sometimes superstitious) Christians visiting the tombs of the dead (especially those venerated as martyrs), holding a prayer service, and having a meal there. In times these meals began to be occasions for the excesses witnessed earlier in the agape meal. In a letter of response to Bishop Aurelius of Carthage, Augustine advises that the practice be eliminated, but in a kindly and gentle manner. “In my opinion it should be done away with, but in a manner that is not severe, or hard or imperious. Let it be abolished more by teaching than commanding, more by warning than threatening.” (72) The entire manner of approach and the principles that he lays down reveal a very wise, tolerant, and prudent man. And his principles in these matters can be said to reflect also the practice of the Church of Rome, willing like Augustine to tolerate that which is not directly a danger to faith or morals. On the other hand, how much useless bickering and how many quarrels that wound charity has the Church witnessed because of liturgical matters down through the centuries and even in our own day – disputes that arise from a failure to observe the principles set down by the great teacher of the Western Church.
It is to be noted, in the same letter to Bishop Aurelius, that Augustine makes a reference to those sins that make it mandatory not to receive Holy Communion. Drawing Aurelius’ attention to Romans 13:13, with its references to orgies and drunkenness (which Augustine applied to the “feast of the dead”) and to fornication and impurity (impudicitiis in his Latin version), he noted that these last two, by everyone’s admission, excluded one from reception of the Eucharist, while the seriousness of the other sins sometimes failed to be recognized. (73)
In respect to the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, St. Augustine’s doctrine has always presented certain difficulties. F. van deer Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, writes:
It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West. (74)
That rather strong assertion is not van der Meer’s final word on the matter, because he immediately proceeds to take into account some strong statements of Augustine that touch upon the Real Presence. Even then, however, he concludes: “These occasional flashes are, however, really secondary to the idea which time and again illumines his mind – namely, that through the eating of Christ’s Body and the drinking of his Blood, we become one with him and with each other.” (75) Indeed, at first glance Augustine does appear to hold for a merely symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Thus, in his letter to Bishop Boniface, written around 408, we read:
Frequently we speak in such a way as to say, [for example] when Easter draws near, “Tomorrow or the next day will be the Passion of the Lord”, and we say this although he suffered many years ago and although the Passion occurred once and for all. Likewise on a Sunday we say, “The Lord rose today” – even though very many years have passed since he rose. Now no one is so inept as to call us liars when we speak this way, because we are referring to these days according to the similitude they bear to those in which such events happened…Was not Christ immolated in himself once and for all? Nevertheless is he not immolated for the people in the Sacrament not only at the Paschal solemnities but every day, so that anyone who replies to a questioner that he is immolated does not lie? For if the sacraments did not bear a certain similarity [Lat. quondam similitudinem] to those things for which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord [Sicut ergo secundum quondam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est] and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. Believing is nothing else than having faith. And so when it is replied that the little child believes, even though he does not yet have an experience of the Faith, the response is given because he has the Sacrament of the Faith and has converted himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion. (76)
An even stronger argument for a symbolic understanding can be made from his remarks in the De Doctrina Christiana. In book 3 of that work he sets forth rules for the proper reading and understanding of Sacred Scripture. Not everything, he writes, is to be understood at face value. There are various types of writing. Among them, says Augustine, is the figurative or symbolic. Thus:
If a word is prescriptive, forbidding a thing that is disgraceful or evil or ordering some good thing, it is not to be understood figuratively. If however it appears to order something which is disgraceful or evil or to forbid something which is good, then the language is figurative. The Lord says, “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you will not have life in you.” This appears to order us to do something disgraceful or evil. Therefore it is symbolic [lit. “a figure”: Figura ergo est], commanding us to communicate in the Passion of the Lord and to remember pleasantly and usefully that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. (77)
Another example can be found in his commentary on Psalm 3, in which he speaks of the “banquet in which the Lord entrusted and handed over to his disciples the symbol of his Body and Blood [in quo et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit]”. (78)
It must be admitted that the prima facie evidence – as reflected in the above statements, which are the strongest but not the only ones that can be adduced – would seem to support the conclusion of those who find only a symbolic understanding of the Eucharistic Mystery in Augustine’s writings. Such a conclusion, however, would indicate that Augustine’s Eucharistic teaching was at variance with that of St. Ambrose, from whom Augustine himself had received his catechesis on the Eucharist prior to his Baptism. There is nothing, however, in his own writings or those of his contemporaries or in the age immediately following his death that indicates that anyone perceived any difference between the teachings of these two men. And apart from the attempts of Berengarius to use Ambrose as well as Augustine to support his novel teaching, there has never been any serious doubt about the “realism” of Ambrose’s teaching. That extrinsic consideration aside, however, it can be demonstrated by means of the following reflections that Augustine did not teach a symbolic or merely spiritual doctrine in respect to the Eucharist Presence.
Augustine does not use the word sacrament in a manner identical with that of later theology. For him, it was the equivalent of the phrase sacred sign or figure and referred to the visible element in a holy action or activity or gesture. Thus, he writes: “Signs that pertain to divine things are called sacraments”; (79) “The signs of divine things are visible, but what we honor in them are realities that are invisible.” (80) “They are called sacraments because in them one thing one thing is seen, another is understood. That which is seen has a bodily appearance [speciem habet corporalem]; that which is understood has spiritual fruit.” (81) The visible element, of course, if it was really to be a sign, must have some kind of natural similarity to the holy reality or power for which it was a sign. This natural similarity, together with the word spoken over the visible element (one remembers his famous dictum: “The word comes to the element and it becomes Sacrament”), (82) is what raises the visible element from its status as being simply any sign and making of it a “sacred sign”. In all this, his usage was equivalent to St. Ambrose’s use of the word sacramentum, and to that the Greek Fathers when they used the words “type-antitype”. Indeed, for Augustine, the word sacrament was much wider than our notion, since it could be applied to many holy rites or gestures that were not sacraments in our sense of the Seven. Thus, in the passage cited above from his letter to Januarius, he calls the Feast of Pentecost a sacramentum, i.e., a visible sign of something sacred. From this visible element, Augustine always distinguished what he called the “reality” (the res) and the “power” (virtus) of the Sacrament. Nevertheless, for him this reality and power were not something that, in the Christian dispensation, existed apart from the sacramental sign. (83) As one can see by reading his commentary on John 6, Augustine held that both Jews and Christians had “sacraments”. Those sacraments (e.g., the manna and the Eucharist), although they were different in visible appearance or sign value, nonetheless signified the same Reality, viz., Christ. But the Christian received the Reality in truth, the Jews only in figure. “The manna was a shadow; this is the truth.” We would say, in our later terminology: the Christian sacraments contain what they signify. Thus, as we have seen above when considering the word in Ambrose, the word sacramentum for Augustine was the equivalent of what later theology would call the sacramentum tantum, the visible element considered by itself. To understand his thought about the “sacrament” in our sense of the word, one must consider not only what he says when using that word but also what he says concerning the reality or power present to us in or through the visible element.
If one examines again the texts cited above, which apparently support a merely symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, one can see the different perspective obtained by bearing in mind his notion of the word sacrament. The sacraments (i.e., the visible elements) bear a certain similarity to those things of which they are sacraments. Since Christ himself is our heavenly food, the sign or Sacrament of his Body and Blood is itself in a certain way Christ, i.e., since they are food and he is food. So too Baptism. The visible elements, the Sacrament, bear a certain resemblance to faith, which cleanses from sin and makes us belong to God.
This understanding illuminates, too, his words from the De Doctrina Christiana and his commentary on Psalm 3. When the Lord spoke of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood, he was not encouraging cannibalism, “something disgraceful or evil”; the eating (in the actual physical sense of that word) referred to the “figure” or symbol or sacrament that bears a similarity to the heavenly food, the Body and Blood of Christ himself, which are the reality (the res) eaten but are also “the food that eating does not diminish”. (84)
It must be said further that the above understanding is required unless one chooses, without reason, to hold that Augustine consistently contradicts himself. This is so because there are other texts where his remarks on the Eucharistic Presence are quite realistic.
Thus, in one of his sermons to the newly baptized, when he was no longer bound by the disciplina, Augustine says:
I remember my promise. For last night I promised you who have been baptized a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now behold and which you became partakers of last night. You should understand what you have received, what you will receive, indeed what you should receive daily. That bread that you see on the altar and that has been sanctified by the word of God is the Body of Christ. That chalice – rather, that which the chalice contains – has been sanctified by the word of God and is the Blood of Christ. Through these things the Lord Christ wished to entrust to us his Body and his Blood, which he shed for us unto the remission of sins. If you receive them well, you are that which you receive. The Apostle says, “One bread and we, the many, are one body” (1 Cor 10:17). (85)
He says in another place:
[Christ has healed us Gentiles.] We did not know him in the flesh, yet we have deserved to eat his Flesh and to be his members in his Flesh. (86)
One of his clearest statements is found in his commentary on Psalm 33 (34). The inscription states that it is a Psalm of David composed by him at the time of the episode recounted in 1 Samuel 21:10-15. Attempting to give this background to his hearers, Augustine came across an exegetical difficulty. His Old Latin translation of 1 Samuel 21:13 was a very poor one, and the verse read, “Ferebatur in minibus suis” (“He carried himself in his own hands”). Having raised the difficulty, Augustine was left to explain how anyone could carry himself in his own hands.
And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands. (87)
His daring statement, Christ carried himself in his own hands at the Last Supper, coming at the end of the sermon, is quite understandable in context. His method of interpreting the Psalms was to see them as always speaking of Christ in some way: either Christ himself as an individual or what Augustine called the “Whole Christ”, i.e. Christ in his members, the Church. Much of his commentary on Psalm 33 (34 speaks of Christ as victim, High Priest, his sacrifice, and the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Thus, by a logical step when he came to a passage difficult to interpret, he returned to the theme of the Eucharist, not in its aspect as sacrifice but as Presence, concluding that Christ at the Last Supper carried himself in his own hands. That it was not an offhand or nonreflective remark on his part can be seen from the fact that Augustine returned to the idea the following day, when he gave his second sermon on the same Psalm.
And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.” (88)
His language is more circumspect here. There is an allusion to the disciplina arcani in the “when…he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of”. The “in a certain way” is a statement like those seen above and is intended to avoid the ridiculous picture of the Lord actually holding himself in his hands according to his natural mode of being.
There are other clear indications of his Eucharistic realism. He tells us, for example, that the Eucharist is to be adored (it is, he says, a sin not to adore it) and that Christians would not communicate at all unless it was the Flesh of Christ. Indeed, he repeats the teaching already expressed by St. Ignatius and St. Ambrose: the Flesh we receive is the very flesh born of Mary.
He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh to us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it [nemo autem illam carem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit] …and we sin by not adoring. (89)Who is the Bread of heaven except Christ? But in order that man might eat the bread of angels, the Lord of the angels became a man. If this had not happened, we would not have his Flesh: if we did not have his Flesh, we would not eat the Bread of the altar. (90)
A beautiful Eucharistic sermon attributed to Augustine but considered spurious by many is Denis 3 Part of it follows:
Therefore Christ Our Lord, who by suffering offered for us that which, by being born, he had received from us, and who has been made High Priest forever, has given us the rite [Lat. ordinem] of sacrificing that which you see, namely, his Body and Blood. Struck by the spear, his Body gave forth water and Blood, by which he took away our sins. Mindful of this grace, approach and share in this altar, working out your salvation in fear and trembling because it is God who works in you. Recognize in the Bread that which hung on the Cross; recognize in the chalice what flowed from his side….Therefore take and eat the Body of Christ, all of you who have already been made members of Christ in the Body of Christ. Take and drink the Blood of Christ….Just as this is changed into you when you eat and drink, so you will be turned into the Body of Christ when you live obediently and worthily. (91)
To defend the “Eucharistic realism” of St. Augustine is not to deny the delight he took in elaborating on the directly symbolic aspects of the Mystery. A particularly striking example of his approach (if not his exact words, since the authenticity of the sermon is questioned) can be found in the sermon reported as given at the Easter Vigil and listed in the manuscripts as Denis 6. (92) In it Augustine compares the laborious preparation of the catechumens for their Baptism to the process by which wheat is planted, grown, threshed, and baked into bread for the Eucharist. As the process undergone by the wheat was ultimately to make of it the Body of Christ, so too with the preparation of those who would become members of Christ.
Finally, the realism with which Augustine viewed the reality of Christ’s Presence in the sacrifice, in which Christ “is immolated every day” (cf. Letter 98, to Boniface, note 76 above), can be measured by what was produced in the faithful who received the Eucharist: it made them what they received. Indeed, this is the very core of Augustine’s teaching on the Eucharist. As “sacrament of piety and sign of unity”, it was also the “bond of charity”. It produced and symbolized the unity of the Church as Body of Christ, a truth attested to by Augustine many times and in many ways, some of them as daring as they are beautiful.
If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and his members, it is your Mystery placed on the Lord’s table; it is your Mystery that you receive. (93)He who suffered for us has entrusted to us this Sacrament his Body and Blood, which indeed he has even made us. For we have been made his Body, and, by his mercy, we are that which we receive. (94)
Not only do we become Christians; we become Christ….If he is the Head and we the members, then together he and we are the whole man. (95)
And there will be One Christ, loving himself. For when the members love one another, the Body loves itself. (96)
______________________________________________________________________
(69) John Paul II, Augustine of Hippo, Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986, p. I.
(70) Epistola 54: Ad Inquisitiones Januarii, 2; CSEL, 34, I-2, p. 160. “quo denim neque contra fidem neque contra bonos mores esse convincitur, indifferenter habendum et pro eorum inter quos vivitur, societate servandum est.”
(71) Epistola 55: Ad Inquisitiones Januarii, 19; CSEL, 34, I-2, p. 210. “sed ecclesia dei inter multam paleam multaque zizania constituta multa tolerat et tamen, quae sunt contra fidem vel bonam vitam, nec adprobat nec tacet nec facit.”
(72) Epistola 22: 5; CSEL, 34, I-2, p. 58. “non ergo aspere, quantum existimo, non duriter, non modo imperioso ista tolluntur, magis docendo quam iubendo, magis monendo quam minando.”
(73) Epistola 22: 3; CSEL, 34, I-2, p. 56. From the point of view of the history of the Sacrament of Penance it is interesting to note that Augustine apparently does not think that these two sins – which excluded one from reception of the Eucharist – were matter for the public penitential system, as were adultery and murder, for example. They probably were to be submitted to the private penitential system, called correptio, a practice of the sacrament like the one we are familiar with.
(74) F. van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop, p. 313.
(75) Augustine the Bishop, p. 315.
(76) Augustine, Letter 98, to Boniface, 9; CSEL, 34, I-2, pp. 530-31.
(77) De Doctrina Christiana, 55; CSEL, 80, pp. 93-94.
(78) Ennar. In Psalmos, 3, I; CCSL, 38, p. 8.
(79) Augustine, Ep. 138, I, 7; CSEL, 44, p. 131.
(80) Augustine, De Catechizandis Rudibus, 26, 50; CCSL, 46, p. 173.
(81) Augustine, Sermon 272; PL, 38, 1247.
(82) In Jo. Tract 80, 3; CCSL, 36, p. 529.
(83) Berengarius interpreted Augustine as holding that the res of the Sacrament was not contained in the Sacrament. In our own day Johannes Betz follows the same interpretation of Augustine. He writes: “This doctrine, that is, that the true reality (res), the Body and the Blood of Jesus, are not contained directly in the consecrated signs but rather remain apart from them is again repeated by Augustine implicitly when he says that evil persons, heretics, and unworthy Catholic receive the Body and Blood of Christ only in sign, not in truth, solo sacramento, but not in re ipsa, not in re vera” (Mysterium Salutis, IV/2, p. 225). And so Betz concludes, “As shown, the teacher of Hippo does not go as far as the full Faith of the Church in the matter of the Real Presence” (idem, p. 227). This misunderstanding, beginning with Ratramnus and Berengarius, continued by Wyclif, Zwingli, and followed by many others since them, come from a reading of Augustine that is overly literal and at that only partial. Moreover, even before the time of Ratramnus, Faustus of Riez and Gregory the Great read Augustine’s teaching in a realistic sense, and the list of Augustine’s disciples, from Paschasius to Aquinas to Portalie, who have followed Faustus and Gregory would necessitate a special bibliography. As in so many other areas where Augustine is variously interpreted, we will probably never see unanimous agreement.
(84) Confessions, Bk. 10, 6; CCSL, 27, p. 159.
(85) Augustine, Sermo CCXXVII: On Easter Sunday; PL, 38, 1099. Augustine mentions here the idea of the bread being sanctified by the word of God. This is an idea not often found in him, but for a further text, cf. below, p. 209.
(86) Augustine, In Johannis Evan., 31, II, p. 209.
(87) Ennar. In Ps. 33, 1st sermon, 10; CCL, 38, pp. 280-81.
(88) Ennar. In Ps. 33, 2nd sermon, 10; CCL, 38, pp. 283. In the same sermon, 10, Augustine has a strong statement on the identity of the Victim on Calvary with the Victim in the Eucharist: “They approached him in order to crucify him; we approach him in order to receive his Body and Blood. They were made darkness by the Crucified; by eating and drinking the Crucified we are illuminated” (CCL, 38, pp. 288-89).
(89) Ennar. In Ps. 98, 98, 9; CCL, 39, p. 1385.
(90) Sermon 130; PL, 38, 726.
(91) Augustine, Sermon Denis 3; PL, 46 827, or G. Morin, Miscellanea Agostiniana, p. 19. On the vivid expression “recognize in the chalice what flowed from his side”, cf. the similar statement in an undoubtedly authentic text from the De Trinitate found below, p. 209. The authenticity of the sermon is much disputed. It formed part of Michael Denis’ collection, made in the late eighteenth century. Van der Meer in his great work on Augustine prints it in full (pp. 376ff.) but notes the dispute on its authenticity; Sheerin is of the opinion that “it is definitely not the work of Augustine” (p. 102). On the whole, however, it is so “Augustinian” in tone that I would tend to credit its authenticity except for the reference to the Eucharist being turned into the recipient. Augustine frequently speaks of the recipient being converted into that which is received but never, as far as I am aware, of the Eucharist being transformed into the communicant. This could be possibly the exception to the rule, but it may just as well be an interpolation (with others?) in an otherwise authentic sermon. As we shall see below, this sermon is cited in the ninth century by St. Paschasius Radbertus as being a work of Augustine.
(92) Denis 6. A translation of all or large parts of this work can be found in Sheerin, pp. 105ff., and van der Meer, p. 372. Both men consider the sermon authentic.
(93) Sermon 272; PL, 38, 1246-48. The very reality with which Augustine spoke of the Church as Body of Christ argues for his realistic doctrine on the Eucharistic Body, and helps explain the apparently ambiguous statements to be found in him. Cf. below, p. 181, note 18 for Henri de Lubac’s comment on this matter.
(94) Sermon 229; PL, 38, 1103.
(95) In Jo., Tract 21, 8; CCSL 36, pp. 216-17.
(96) In Epis. Ad Parthos, Tract. 10, 3; PL, 35, 2055.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Joe,
I will be brief.
"If a word is prescriptive, forbidding a thing that is disgraceful or evil or ordering some good thing, it is not to be understood figuratively. If however it appears to order something which is disgraceful or evil or to forbid something which is good, then the language is figurative. The Lord says, “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you will not have life in you.” This appears to order us to do something disgraceful or evil. Therefore it is symbolic [lit. “a figure”: Figura ergo est], commanding us to communicate in the Passion of the Lord and to remember pleasantly and usefully that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. (77)
Another example can be found in his commentary on Psalm 3, in which he speaks of the “banquet in which the Lord entrusted and handed over to his disciples the symbol of his Body and Blood [in quo et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit]”. (78)
It must be admitted that the prima facie evidence – as reflected in the above statements, which are the strongest but not the only ones that can be adduced – would seem to support the conclusion of those who find only a symbolic understanding of the Eucharistic Mystery in Augustine’s writings. Such a conclusion, however, would indicate that Augustine’s Eucharistic teaching was at variance with that of St. Ambrose, from whom Augustine himself had received his catechesis on the Eucharist prior to his Baptism. There is nothing, however, in his own writings or those of his contemporaries or in the age immediately following his death that indicates that anyone perceived any difference between the teachings of these two men. And apart from the attempts of Berengarius to use Ambrose as well as Augustine to support his novel teaching, there has never been any serious doubt about the “realism” of Ambrose’s teaching.
Joe, you have merely shown a biased author concluding that Augustine could not have meant what is obviously said due to the fact that it would seem to be in conflict with Ambrose's teaching. At this point this is an attempt of trying to read the mind of the dead. THis is where a logical argument ends.
Once again, the author admits that the words of Augustine teach a symbolic view, but that it could not be the case because it would mean that Augustine was in disagreement with Ambrose. You can't read the minds of the dead.
In short, the author goes on to attempt to fit the term sacrament into Augustine's thoughts.
"This understanding illuminates, too, his words from the De Doctrina Christiana and his commentary on Psalm 3. When the Lord spoke of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood, he was not encouraging cannibalism, “something disgraceful or evil”; the eating (in the actual physical sense of that word) referred to the “figure” or symbol or sacrament that bears a similarity to the heavenly food, the Body and Blood of Christ himself, which are the reality (the res) eaten but are also “the food that eating does not diminish”
Augustine clearly separates the symbolism from the literalism. The author here attempts to jumble them up. Augustine takes two opposites, figurative and literal. HE explains that if the Bible teaches do something bad, then it is a figure. If it teaches to do something good, than it is literal. Christ's teaching to eat his flesh seems bad, so therefore it is a figure.
I will take Augustine at his word, not assuming to know what he was REALLY thinking. Which is all the author here does Joe, assume.
The author loses me in the above quote.
He says
" the eating (in the actual physical sense of that word) referred to the “figure” or symbol or sacrament that bears a similarity to the heavenly food, the Body and Blood of Christ himself, which are the reality (the res) eaten but are also “the food that eating does not diminish”
The author transforms figure and symbol into the sacrament as you know it. Once again, applying the term sacrament and oddly forcing Augustine's words to fit the definition.
This is not logical Joe and you know this. However, since we have reached the point of not only reading the dead's mind, this discussion has taken a turn into illogical as well.
If you can read the minds of the dead as this author is doing, then you are right in your point, but since we both know that that is not possible, we are better of taking their writings at face value. Once again, all this mumbo jumbo, and not a valid point has been made to assume that Augustine did not teach a figurative teaching of the communion.
God Bless
Sandt:
I would like to respond to two things that you say.
"Augustine takes two opposites, figurative and literal. HE explains that if the Bible teaches do something bad, then it is a figure. If it teaches to do something good, than it is literal. Christ's teaching to eat his flesh seems bad, so therefore it is a figure.
I will take Augustine at his word, not assuming to know what he was REALLY thinking. Which is all the author here does assume."
Actually, not to be too technical, but you’re wrong on two points, and you’re not taking him at his word. First, St. A didn’t take the opposites of figurative and literal; he took the opposites of figurative and symbolic. Your words aren’t his. At least, those weren’t the words he used in the referenced quotation. (Besides; if you translate “symbolic” as “literal,” doesn’t that contradict your own point? Or were you translating A’s “figurative” as “literal,” and his “symbolic” as “figurative”? If so, why?)
Second, St. A wasn’t speaking of what is actually being taught, as you say, but of what is apparently being taught. Be careful about the actual words he is using. At no point does he say that if the bread/Body identification appears bad it therefore must be bad. He is not talking about realities but appearances, in the quotation that you’re drawing from. To go from speaking of the Eucharist appearing bad to speaking of it being bad is a jump that St. A doesn’t himself actually make, at least in any of the quotations used.
If we were to break your argument down into a syllogism, it would read like this:
According to Augustine:
1) If the Bible teaches do something bad, then it is a figure.
2) If the Bible teaches do something good, then it is literal.
3) Christ’s teaching to eat his flesh seems bad.
4) If something seems like it is bad, it is bad.
5) Therefore Christ’s teaching to eat his flesh is bad.
6) Therefore eating Christ’s flesh is a figure, and not literal.
If we took out “According to Augustine,” then this argument would be fine for everything except 4), which isn’t actually true; and that in turn invalidates 5) and 6), because 4) is the only way that you can get from 3) to 5). But the fact that “According to Augustine” is a necessary part of this argument, each of the rest has been rendered problematic. 1) and 2) are wrong because Augustine doesn’t actually say either one. He says that if the Bible *appears* to teach us something good or bad, etc. The only part of this argument that corresponds to St. A’s quotation is 3).
The question of what St. Augustine means must be judged in context of what he says elsewhere. When, for instance, St. A says that at the Last Supper, "Christ held and carried Himself in His own hands" (In Ps. xcviii, n. 9), that sounds pretty literal—which is to say, in the words of the author Joe was quoting, “symbolic” in the older meaning of the term..
As regards realities vs. appearances, from my short quotation, obviously St. A thought that the bread was really Christ; he himself didn’t say that it was appearance. He identified the one with the other in an unequivocal statement. If your translation of appearances being reality is true, we’re left with no choice but to think that at one time Augustine said that the Eucharist was bad and only figurative, and at another time that it was good and literal.
Tobias
Tobias,
I fail to see your point.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at February 7, 2006 02:51 PMThen I will simplify.
You argued that Augustine says we should not take Christ literally when He says, "This is my body." Augustine himself says that Christ was actually holding Himself in His hands when He said that. We can either believe you that Augustine doesn't believe the bread is actually Christ; or we can believe what Augustine himself says unequivocally about what the bread actually is: Christ Himself.
It seems to me that the only way you can make Augustine out to disbelieve in Real Presence is to prove, somehow, that when he says the bread is Christ Himself, he actually means that it isn't actually Christ Himself, and that's obviously going to be difficult.
Tobias
SandT,
Since I never got a reply to my post from the other thread “Secrets of the Bible” on this topic I decided to re-post it her with minor modifications. Please refer back to the other thread if you still need context.
Your assertions are not based on history or fact…they are alone YOUR ASSERTIONS and just stating them does not make them so. It truly amazes me when protestant Christians try to use the Church Fathers to argue their point in a debate when the Church Fathers were clearly [Roman] Catholic in their doctrinal beliefs. Unfortunately, I believe that it is the same method of operation for the past 500 years: take a word, passage, or phrase of Scripture or of the writings of the Fathers out of context, apply one’s personal interpretation to fit their pre-existing beliefs, or to explain it away by trying to make it say something that it is not.
In the other thread you wrote: “All of what you typed does not say anything about a literal interpretation.”
SandT: the dictionary states that for something to be literal it 1) Follows the basic meaning (i.e., adhering strictly to the basic meaning of an original text without further elaboration or interpretation), 2) Used to emphasize truth of something (i.e., word used to emphasize that something is true). Read my previous quotes with this in mind as I’ve read yours and see if we still need to continue this discussion.
In all SandT, I would disagree with you entirely that the quotes I provided are not literal in what they convey, and so does St. Augustine. Instead of recapitulating all of the quotes above let me just give you three quotes. Please explain to me, to all of us, how Augustine can say these types of things, but hold fast to a figurative interpretation ONLY. I DON’T deny his [Augustine’s] figurative phrases regarding the Eucharist, but you DO deny the reality of the sacrament. Thus, the difference between us is an unwillingness on your part to accept the fact that Augustine writes about the Eucharist in a figurative or symbolic sense AND a literal sense. Rather you would have it be either/or instead of both/and. As Catholics we can fully accept that Augustine uses language in a figurative way regarding the Eucharist, but we also accept his literal language use. This is the essence of a sacrament. THE SIGN OR SYMBOL CONVEYS ITS REALITY. Augustine, does not have dual opinions as you suggest, but rather a full understanding of what the Eucharistic mystery is all about. This demonstrates again how in the Catholic Church we speak of and understand the terms “fullness of faith” or “fullness of truth.”
You also stated:
“…because Augustine clearly describes the body and blood being food as figurative, you ought to assume that Augustine is referring to a figure when teaching about Christ's flesh and blood as food.”
Again, SandT, why should I or anyone here assume this? Because you say we should? If this is true then please tell us how the three phrases below are anything but a literal interpretation taking into account the previous definitions given.
The bread which you see on the altar IS, sanctified by the word of God, THE BODY OF CHRIST; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, IS, sanctified by the word of God, THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.(Sermo 227; on p. 377)
What you see is the bread and the chalice...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST (Sermons, 272; on p. 32)
Take, then, and eat the BODY OF CHRIST...You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that THE SON OF GOD WAS THAT EUCHARIST (Denis, 3, 3; on p. 66)
Before you go and re-post your previous quotes about “figurative” and “symbolic” and insert the above definitions I gave to create a circular argument here, let me just go ahead and say YES I agree that St. Augustine made those statements and that according to my own “rules of engagement” they must be taken literally as well. However remember, I can, we [Catholics] can, accept this because of Augustine’s continual and CLEAR reference to the Eucharist as the Body of Christ as well. Again, I can accept a both/and perspective and not lose a wink of sleep.
SandT my brother, I implore you to open your heart and mind to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. St. Augustine was, is, and will always be a Catholic and he nor any of the Chuch Fathers’ Apostolic teaching can be bent to support protestant doctrine. I say this because I believe that you are a Christian and you want to follow Christ in all you do. This alone I would hope would be enough to encourage you to put aside your objections for a while and give fair consideration for the Eucharist as it has been understood for 2000 years. I’ll leave you with the words of St. Augustine himself: “...WHAT YOUR FAITH OBLIGES YOU TO ACCEPT is that the bread IS the Body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ (Sermons, 272; on p. 32). I pray that you would be open to the fullness of truth.
Peace,
Matthew
Tobias and Matthew
"It seems to me that the only way you can make Augustine out to disbelieve in Real Presence is to prove, somehow, that when he says the bread is Christ Himself, he actually means that it isn't actually Christ Himself, and that's obviously going to be difficult."
First let me define my position clearly. Christ is present when we come together in his name, so that also includes the communion. However, we do not believe that the bread and wine transform literally into His actual flesh and blood. This the position I believe Augustine and other church fathers held. SO here is the simple proof why Tobias and others. Let us look at his writing.
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative."
This clearly says that if something forbids that which is wrong or commands that which is good, it is not figurative. Meaning, it is literal. Cannibalism according to the Scriptures was wrong.
"If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative."
If something wrong is commanded or something good is prohibited, then it is figurative. THat is clearly what Augustine is saying.
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice;
Augustine here points out that the teaching of Christ and His body and blood as food and drink.
Augustine agrees with Scripture and concludes that this seems to command a crime or that which is wrong. THEREFORE.....
"IT IS THEREFORE A FIGURE,"
Says Augustine.
"enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."-Augustine (Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16.)
A figure that represents the memory of what Christ did for us.
So in regards to whatever else Augustine wrote on the subject; due this writing on Christian Doctrine; any other references made to Christ's flesh should be taken in a figurative manner. Oh yes, Augustine taught in a figurative manner as well. Either that is the conclusion, or Augustine was confused and contradicted himself often, which makes for a poor reference point in either instances to support your view of the communion.
God Bless
SandT:
""If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative."
If something wrong is commanded or something good is prohibited, then it is figurative. THat is clearly what Augustine is saying."
Your argument hangs on two points:
1) You assume that when Augustine is talking about whether something *seems* wrong, we must assume that it *is* wrong. You're reading the above question to mean, "If, however, it objectively *does* enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative." If he meant "does," why did he write "seems to"?
2) You're ignoring those statements, such as the one I quoted earlier, where Augustine says unequivocally that Christ is holding Himself in His hands at the Last Supper.
I can't go along with you on either point. In the first, you're putting words into Augustine's mouth; in the second, there's just no way around the identity that Augustine makes. Again, in the first, your argument begs the question because you're sneaking in the idea that taking Christ literally in a non-cannabalistic way is impossible, according to Augustine. It seems pretty clear that he is talking about the appearance of cannabalism, not spiritual flesh and blood, which obviously wouldn't be cannabalism.
As several people have pointed out to you various times in these posts, there's nothing wrong with taking both a literal and "figurative" interpretation of the Scriptures simultaneously regarding the same subject, and in point of fact I don't know of a single Church Father who doesn't do this regularly. The practice was virtually systematized in Origen and adopted by the Cappadocian Fathers.
Tobias
Tobias,
Okay, so he uses the word "seems." This is irrelevant, because he follows immediately by saying, THEREFORE IT IS A FIGURE. The whole context teaches that which is or seems wrong is to be taken figuratively. More specific, the teaching of eat ye my flesh was to be understood as figuratively.
You believe in a literal interpretation, Augustine taught otherwise. In this instance, he was teaching what is to be interpreted as literal and what is to be interpreted as figurative. In regards to the communion, Augustine does not make mention of a dual interpretation. Any other references to the communion by Augustine should be read as a figurative meaning as per AUGUSTINE's own words. God Bless
SandT,
It is obvious that you stand or fall on your ONE quotation from Augustine while continuing to ignore virtually everything else that has been presented to you from Augustine’s writings. Since you have continued to ignore the viewpoints from your Catholic brethren such as myself, Tobias, WWWO, etc. then maybe you will consider some writings of a couple of your Protestant brethren.
First of all, Oxford scholar J.N.D. Kelly on St. Augustine:
"If Ambrose's influence helped to mediate the doctrine of a physical change to the West, that of Augustine was exerted in a rather different direction. His thought about the Eucharist, unsystematic and many-sided as it is, is tantalizingly difficult to assess. Some, like F. Loofs, have classified him as the exponent of a purely symbolical doctrine; while A. Harnack seized upon the Christian's incorporation into Christ's mystical body, the Church, as the core of his sacramental teaching. Others have attributed receptionist views to him.”
"There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM. Thus, preaching on 'the sacrament of the Lord's table' to newly baptized persons, he remarked:
'That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST'S BODY. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST'S BLOOD. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey HIS BODY AND BLOOD, which He shed for us[Serm 227].'
"'You know,' he said in another sermon [Serm 9:14], 'what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, WHOM you are EATING and WHOM you are DRINKING.' Commenting on the Psalmist's bidding that we should adore the footstool of His feet, he pointed out that this must be the earth. But since to adore the earth would be blasphemous, he concluded that the word must mysteriously signify the FLESH which Christ took from the earth and which He gave to us to EAT. Thus it was the EUCHARISTIC BODY WHICH DEMANDED ADORATION.
"Again, he explained [Enarr in Ps 33:1:10] the sentence, 'He was carried in his hands' (LXX of 1 Sam 21:13), which in the original describes David's attempt to allay Achish's suspicions, as referring to the sacrament:
'CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE OFFERED HIS VERY BODY AND SAID "THIS IS MY BODY"'.
"One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements WITH THE SACRED BODY AND BLOOD. There can be NO DOUBT that he shared the REALISM held by almost ALL his contemporaries and predecessors." (Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, pg 446-447)
Next, Ludwig Ott from FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA:
"The Eucharistic doctrine expounded by St. Augustine is interpreted in a purely spiritual way by most Protestant writers on the history of dogmas. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does NOT exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he CONCURS WITH THE OLDER CHURCH TRADITION IN EXPRESSING BELIEF IN THE REAL PRESENCE.”
'The bread which you see on the altar IS, sanctified by the word of God, THE BODY OF CHRIST; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, IS, sanctified by the word of God, THE BLOOD OF CHRIST."
"Enarr in Ps 33 Sermo 1,10 : 'CHRIST BORE HIMSELF IN HIS HANDS, WHEN HE OFFERED HIS BODY SAYING : "THIS IS MY BODY."'
"When in the Fathers' writings, especially in those of St. Augustine, side by side WITH the clear attestations of the Real Presence, many obscure symbolically-sounding utterances are found also; the following points must be noted for the proper understanding of such passages...."
(1) The early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev hom 9,10);
(2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression to which must be added the LACK OF A DEVELOPED TERMINOLOGY to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ's body from its natural mode of existence once on earth;
(3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as "THE SIGN OF UNITY" [St. Augustine, Sermon 272; Homilies on John 26:13]; THIS IN NO WISE EXCLUDES the REAL PRESENCE (see Ott, page 377-8)
“St. Augustine stresses the sacramental and spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ WITHOUT denying their Real Presence in the Sacrament. This is not to say that St. Augustine necessarily contradicts the official Catholic teaching concerning the mode of Christ's Presence. The proper terminology to be used to express it HAD NOT YET BEEN FULLY WORKED OUT. Catholics also call the bread and wine "SIGNS" and refer to the Eucharist as a sacrificial "memorial."
Lastly, SandT to address your assertion that St. Augustine was a symbolist ONLY please read the following passage and explain to us all how to understand its meaning as being symbolic.
"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)
SandT, from the mouth of Augustine himself, he says that Christ is "IMMOLATED" which means sacrificed (in an unbloody manner) in the EUCHARIST every day. As such, this is NOT a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or "making present" before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only eternal sacrifice. So how do you reconcile this statement to be only figurative since according to the “interpretive rule of SandT” via Augustine then the statement above MUST be literal. Since, "If a word is prescriptive, forbidding a thing that is disgraceful or evil or ORDERING SOME GOOD THING, it is NOT to be understood figuratively. Well according to your interpretation of St. Augustine’s intent on the Eucharist doesn’t this “prescribe” that if one says that Christ is immolated [sacrificed] in the Sacrament he would be telling the truth, or “ordering some good thing?” Truth is ALWAYS good, is it not? The truth, as per Augustine, in this case is that the sacrifice at Calvary is the same as it is in the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is its’ re-presentation of the once and for all sacrifice in the sacrament as Augustine tells us. So again SandT, how can you say that the Eucharist and Augustine’s view was ONLY symbolic? Please give it serious thought and prayer.
In Truth,
Matthew
SandT:
His statement is conditional upon appearances, because he uses the word "seems" rather than "is" in the conditional part of the sentence, starting with "if." This is not high-falutin' metaphysical tran-interpretations; this is simple grammar. Everything that follows in that statement, therefore, can only be talking about the appearance, and not what the thing is in itself.
But let's say you are right. Then Augustine was suggesting that appearances are all you need to know to correctly understand a command. An investigation into any depth of meaning in a given command is clearly unneeded. All that is required is what the thing appears to be.
There are two problems with this interpretation. 1) It makes Augustine out to be either lazy or an idiot, or both. I may not be able to prove it, but I'm pretty certain that Augustine believed that a true understanding of something was going to be based on much more than the way it "seems." I'm sure he'd answer you by saying, "Appearances are important in the beginning, but you will have to go by more than what a thing appears to be to know what it really is." 2) What do you make of Abraham really tying his son down to kill him, per God's command that he do so? The command to kill an innocent certainly "seems" evil, especially when God is the one commanding. Why, then, did Abraham really attempt to kill his son? Do you really think Augustine would take issue with him? (By the way, I picked the Abraham example randomly. Scripture is riddled with evil appearances that are nonetheless understood by those who saw them as literal commands. Miracles appear to be magic; to some people in the Bible they appeared to be black magic; therefore if they appear to be just magic to you, you can say they're only figurative miracles, etc.)
Call me kooky, but I really don't think that Augustine was such a fool as to allow himself to be trapped into believing these things, which are the inevitable conclusions of your interpretations of him. Maybe you're right, though. Maybe Augustine was an idiot.
One more time, though it has been said before: the body and blood of Christ can be interpreted, even from Augustine's own statements, both literally and figuratively at the same time and to the same degree. It is figurative, in that it is not simply a man's blood and flesh that is being consumed, as though it were some sort of cannabalism. It is literal, in that it is literally Christ's body, though clearly Christ's body is more than a "corruptible body": it is a "spiritual body." There is nothing evil, even in "seeming," in the command "Eat my body and drink my blood," if that body and blood are understood, as Augustine understood them, to be spiritual body and blood--which is to say, a body that was more than but also included the holy, physical body he had in Israel. God's command to Abraham was literally to kill his son, but it was more than just a command to kill, and the "more" was what kept it from being murder at all.
Tobias
Tobias,
Augustine said that it seems to be a bad thing simply because if taken at face value or taken literally it was a bad thing. Cannibalism by Jewish law is wrong. That is many struggled with this teaching. But it was not a literal teaching. Christ did not really mean to literally eat his flesh. It was symbolic. As Augustine puts it..
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure."
But despite that, the bottom line you have yet to overcome is that Augustine says that it is a FIGURE.
The example you raise with Abraham is a separate topic. That was an illustration of a test of faith in the Lord. I fail to see the correlation you attempt to make. Please do clarify.
Matthew,
Augustine's rule of interpretation applies to the Scriptures, not his teachings or any other teachings by a church father. Once again, if Augustine made reference to Christ's flesh, he probably was being figurative in his writings. I say that because he clearly says that Eat ye my flesh is a figure.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at February 16, 2006 08:17 PMI think I understand your position better, but it's still not fairing well. You seem to think that Augustine is suggesting that, when something appears bad with regard to a specific appearance, we can take it merely as a "figure," not just with regard this particular bad appearance, but across the board. If a thing appears to us as bad in one particular way, we must assume that it is figurative in every way. I don't see that Augustine is going so far as to say that. Context dictates that he is arguing about relative appearances, not absolute essences. In other words, we are to judge that a command is figurative with regard to the particular bad appearance in question. Christ is apparently suggesting cannabalism; all evil appearances are indicative of figurative interpretation; therefore the cannabalism that Christ is suggesting for us can only be of a figurative, and not a literal, kind. The problem with your argument is the fact that what Christ is suggesting to us doesn't just appear to be cannabalism. For some people, this suggests the ultimate sacrifice, that a man would rather you ate his own *body* rather than starve to death. The appearance of *this* aspect of Christ's commandment is not evil at all. Therefore, according to Augustine, neither the eating nor the sacrifice can be interpreted as "figurative."
And as I said before, I don't see how any intelligent person can honestly believe that Augustine is saying that appearances are enough for us to have in order to know what something truly is.
Again, I think in context Augustine is clearly talking about the appearance of literal cannabalism. When Christ's words appear to be a command to commit literal cannabalism, we must interpret this as figurative cannabalism. But the Eucharist can be a merely figurative cannabalism (which, being figurative, is only superficially like cannabalism) and still be literally eating "flesh and blood," when that flesh and blood is understood to be the flesh and blood of the resurrected Body of Christ--a thing not to be equated to men's bodies.
Ohhhhhhhh, now SandT: I think you can easily see how the story of Abraham is related to our point. You're a smart guy/gal. But if you want to pretend or put horse-blinds on, I'll humor you. Abraham was commanded to do something that by all appearances is evil: kill an innocent person, especially a child. According to you, Augustine says that if we are told to do something that appears evil, we must assume it was a figurative command in every way. Therefore, according to your interpretation of Augustine, Augustine was indirectly faulting Abraham for taking God literally, when he should have taken him figuratively.
Tobias
Tobias,
In regards to Abraham:
First, it is not a command to us, it was a command to Abraham specifically. Second, killing was and is wrong. The key point is that Abraham was promised a son. The Lord told him that he would become the father of many nations. Abraham stood on God's word. SO when he took his son up there, he went with faith that God would turn it around. Which is what happpened. But nonetheless, it was a command to Abraham specifically. Moses to was also commanded to stone a man to death. A command for Moses specifically.
As for the merely figurative cannibalism comment you made...I have no comment. ;)
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at February 17, 2006 10:18 AM
SandT,
I am very disappointed. I give you Protestant scholars on the subject and you conveniently glaze over them--no response at all. They clearly and without reservation concede that Augustine DID recognize the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in addition to all of his symbolic sounding language. However, you would like all of us here and I assume others within your circles to concur with your interpretation of Augustine's viewpoint. I find this to be a weak argument since it is based solely on your point of view. A viewpoint not shared with the some of the most scholarly Protestants noted previously. Your attitude on this point is the same way in which new denominations creep up each week (i.e., I've got it right and so I need to preach the "
"truth") (Hardly) Anyway, it is clear that if you refuse to even acknowledge those who you would probably be more fair minded with, then it is difficult to continue to beat one's head against a wall day after day. So for now I will bow out and hope that you will re-read my previous post and at least come to share some commonality with your Protestant brethren to admit that Augustine was not a symbolist ONLY.
Again,I leave you with the words of St. Augustine: “...WHAT YOUR FAITH OBLIGES YOU TO ACCEPT is that the bread IS the Body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ (Sermons, 272; on p. 32).
In Truth,
Matthew
Matthew,
I read what you wrote and it does not make a difference. For starters I am not familiar with those authors and will not delve into their writings. I can easily show you several Roman Catholic authors who agree with the argument I present. I would rather stick to Augustine's writings for now. Shall I post a RC author who agrees with my point of view? Will that make you concede? I doubt it. So please avoid that reasoning with me if you are not will to apply the same reasoning to yourself.
God Bless
Matthew
Well said.
I often must remember that faith is a function of grace. Some of us have it...I believe Augustine noted we may go mad trying to figure out why some won't get it. Here on this site I have become acutely aware of what past popes have called *invincible ignorance.* Then I must return to read Titus 3:1-5... before I go too mad and sin.
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at February 22, 2006 12:44 PMWWWO,
Thank you and I agree that faith is a function of grace...and not to mention humility:)
Peace,
Matthew
SandT,
This is even more sad that you would purposely choose not to consider or explore these highly respected authors by both Protestants AND Catholics alike. The difference here is that their pride is not a stumbling block for them. If you really desire truth in your life as I assume that you do (like us all), then you must be willing to be open to the truth wherever that may lead. I pray that you will soften your heart and open your mind.
As a seeker of truth myself I would welcome your submission of Catholic authors who agree with your interpretation. If you could provide the source as well that would be appreciated. I look forward to your reply.
In Truth,
Matthew
