I have the rest and have posted its entirety repeatedly, which you have never done. I rest on that. True context. All of what he said (on John). All of it.
Again, I don’t recognize your authority to define Augustine’s writings.
Well, whether you accept my authority or not, does not change that my argument is unassailable-- it being the obvious reading of the text. Not even the Pope can make an "already" and "teeth and stomach" disappear from the text. This is now why you flee to "authority," because, contrary to your claims, you have not solved the enigma that haunts you, which can only be resolved when we jettison modern Romish theology-- but in doing so we have to concede that Augustine's theology on the eucharist contradicts Romish theology, and is thus not a less sophisticated version of transubstantiation, but a different doctrine altogether.
But since you were earlier arguing that defeating you on transubstantiation isn't enough to show that Augustine represents us Reformed, or as you put it, he was not "proto-protestant" would you like to move on to another doctrine?
Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that God works equally in all men, or at least draws all men in some way, to move them to repentance and to salvation? And can you provide the scripture texts that the Church uses to prove this? I'd rather you do it than me.