“The fact is that up until the Reformation, the orthodox teaching of Christianity was the Real Presence.”
In actuality, there is no such consensus in “orthodox teaching” on the “Real Presence,” or more specifically on the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. In fact, the difference between “real presence” and transubstantiation is an important one to point out, since there are different views on the matter held by the church Fathers or the various churches across the planet who all claim to be “Apostolic.” And yet, the RCC claims that everyone was agreed on their specific doctrines.
Most of the time the Catholics are simply reading back into historical documents their own theology that exists today, even though they didn’t really exist back then. A good example of this is with Augustine.
Here are some Roman Catholic quotations of Augustine allegedly “proving” that Augustine believed in what the RCC holds to today.
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Ser. 227)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Ser. 272)
To the unsuspecting reader, you would think that Augustine really does support your theology. But WAIT, how does Augustine actually define his own views?
“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood. (Augustine, Letters, 98)
He speaks of the Eucharist as being “in a certain manner” the body of Christ, based on its bearing the name of the “reality” they resemble. Thus, when Augustine speaks of the Eucharist being the body of Christ, he means it from the standpoint of what it symbolizes, but not that it is actually a part of Christ’s real physical body placed on the altar. Here’s more:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11,
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
These are pretty firm refutations of the Catholic View. They even understand John 6 in the way Protestants do today. Augustine isn’t alone in this. Here’s from a Pope:
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
And another Bishop:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Orth. “” 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 are 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. NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.””The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes.
The idea of a constant tradition on this matter is simply fiction. It stands only by reading into the Fathers the current theology of Rome today, and falsely claiming that all held the same view.
You are constantly harping on this fiction. The Church Fathers did NOT all hold the same view on all things. The Magisterium is the harmonizing institution of the Church so that the Church holds the correct teachings in spite of any differences that any one or two individual theologists may propose.
I have differences between my impulses and Church teachings, such as capital punishment. I subject my theological beliefs to the Church. I do not pull a Martin Luther or Hans Kung and attempt to substitute my own theology for the Church's.
Quite a lot of words to reveal to us what we already know, in that, not only does each and every one of these passages in fact affirm the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, unless one reads with the eyes and sees with the heart of faith, the words are gibberish.
******“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood. (Augustine, Letters, 98)******
Augustine here is saying that the Sacrament are sacraments because they are REAL, as in TRUE, ACTUAL, AUTHENTIC in regards to that which they are named for. They bear the realities, as in...the state of being true to that which name they bear. Therefore, if the sacrament was not real, it would not be named for the realities which it bears.
So in a certain manner, that is without doubt in some way, the Sacrament is Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Augustine here is trying to explain how it is that we see and taste bread and wine, but we are partaking in Christ’s body and blood.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION!
The word symbolic or symbolism is not used here. Rather the words used are certain, real, realities. This is conjunction with Augustine’s assertion you posted shows that he did in fact try to explain the Eucharist as transubstantiation, but did use that word.
Your other “proof” that Augustine did not believe....
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, *****“œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.*****
Here Augustine is speaking of Jesus’ rebuke of the crowds who followed Him after the feeding of the five thousand. They wanted a full belly and no idea of the eternal nature of the food which Jesus would give them to eat. Augustine is simply reiterating what Christ said, Why do you eat? Is is for earthly satiation or for eternal life?
“This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him who He has sent.” That is what the Church does.....we believe Jesus, whom God has sent when He says, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you.”
*****” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)****
This passage goes back again to the misunderstanding of those disciples who left Christ after hearing His exhortation that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
******I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken.******
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See synonyms at immaterial.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/spiritual#ixzz2TPzZW5kk
When we look at this definition of spiritual, since there is not real definition of “spiritually”, we see that the first definition is “not tangible” or “material”.
It is stated quite clearly here, THIS IS A MYSTERY which is not tangibly or materially seen but this mystery does quicken, that is gives life.
Still no refutation of the Real Presence through transubstantiation.
****These are pretty firm refutations of the Catholic View. They even understand John 6 in the way Protestants do today. Augustine isn’t alone in this. Here’s from a Pope:*****
Only in the wishful thinking of non Catholics, especially when taken together with all the other Augustine sermons regarding this subject.
*****The idea of a constant tradition on this matter is simply fiction. It stands only by reading into the Fathers the current theology of Rome today, and falsely claiming that all held the same view.*****
Wrong again as I could copy and paste quote after quote after quote going all the way back to the first century the men and women of the faith trying to explain this MYSTERY and supporting the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
I will finish by asking you to name that Church to which Augustine belonged to and served as Bishop of Hippo for more than thirty years. Come on, I know you can:)