"He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer 'Amen'".
There's nothing in this quotation that states that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. In fact, there's nothing in that cite which necessarily even indicates Augustine was talking about the Lord's Supper at all. Likewise,
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
Again, this quotation relies upon a leading assumption - one must already believe the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation before it becomes apparent that Augustine is supporting that doctrine. Otherwise, the citation could be made to support ANY view. I mean, *I* would affirm that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but would take that symbolically (which, however, does not make the assertion any less real). In light of what Augustine clearly said elsewhere when he specifically stated what his view about the elements of the Lord's Supper were, his citation here can just as easily be symbolic as literal. Similarly....
"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf."
....requires that one already hold to Catholic dogma before one sees that it is "obvious" that the communion of which Augustine speaks is a reference to transubstantiate. There is nothing in this statement which INDEPENDENTLY establishes that Augustine was speaking of transubstantiation. As for the last of his statement,
"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him."
This actually would seem to argue AGAINST the Catholic position. He refers to the commemoration of the Lord's Supper as a sacramental sign (a term which usually indicates the figurativeness of its relationship with what it symbolises). Augustine is incorrect in supposing that the keeping of the communion is a "sacrifice" of Christ (since there's quite a lot in Hebrews 7-10 which flatly destroys that thesis), but be that as it may, his words, again, don't support the doctrine of transubstantiation specifically, as your source tries to imply.
That's all for now, since I'll be away from internet access for the rest of the evening. Feel free to respond, or to FReepmail me if you like. I also want to thank you for the link to the Realpresence site - I actually have been planning on updating the Transubstantiation page, and it will prove a valuable information source.
He refers to the commemoration of the Lord's Supper as a sacramental sign (a term which usually indicates the figurativeness of its relationship with what it symbolises). Augustine is incorrect in supposing that the keeping of the communion is a "sacrifice" of Christ (since there's quite a lot in Hebrews 7-10 which flatly destroys that thesis), but be that as it may, his words, again, don't support the doctrine of transubstantiation specifically, as your source tries to imply.
In Catholic theology, sacraments are always referred to as signs which really do what they signify. So Baptism is a sign of cleansing, but it also has a real effect which is to remit sin. Communion is a sign of the body and blood, but it is also the real thing. So Augustine's formulation here is consonant with 2000 years of Catholic tradition. So I would just caution you not to make the equation in the Fathers that sign = only a sign with no corresponding reality.
So you will certain find the words symbol and sign in the Fathers. What you will not find, however, in any of the Fathers, is a statement like that in the Book of Common Prayer:
It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."Maybe transubstantiation is not apparent to you in many of the quotes (Augustine's included). But do we find anything so strongly against it as this?
I found it very informative. :)
Is there else in your repertoire you might recommend?