“At the end Augustine declares by using the word celebrated like a Catholic”
Well that’s a pretty pathetic defense. So you see the word “celebrated,” and so you assume that it must mean he believed that it was REALLY Christ who was being consumed? Instead of the celebration of the Eucharist that ALL Christians already do? Aren’t you just projecting your own man-made beliefs onto someone who lived something like 1,600+ years ago? And aren’t you IGNORING everything he said to wrest one SINGLE word out of it? What about all the parts that said they “RESEMBLE” the reality, but are NOT the reality, they only SIGNIFY the reality, that Christ is NOT consumed. How much clearer do you want it? Where’s your EVIDENCE besides your blind faith in your Pope that Augustine was just KIDDING in all those quotes?
Buddy you do not know what the text means. . Go have any opinion you want. freedom of speech. Cheers!
I think that's the point here, the central point that should be discussed but is being missed. The "evidence", is precisely as the Church claims and that is, with this teaching as others where this claim is made to whit: the consensus of the Fathers. For example, St. Justin the martyr is quite clear in his writings that he subscribes to the idea of transubstaintiation even if he doesn't use the word. And he was earlier than St. Augustine if course (not that that shows anything per se, but that clearly St. Augustine knew about Justin). I think that would be conclusive proof on the part of the Protestant critic: if one could demonstrate that St. Augustine rejected St. Justin's teaching on the matter (by naming the saint by name), that would be undeniable. Indeed, from a Catholic perspective, that he doesn't, does not bode well for the critic who uses St. Augustine as a fellow critic of Catholicism.
All above is a personal digression on my part so please if you focus on anything of this post focus on this: the larger point being ignored is precisely that it's entirely possible everywhere St. Augustine speaks (or appears to speak) of the Eucharist as merely symbolic, he is actually teaching that it is not meant to be thought of as actual, human flesh or blood. That is, he is actually teaching a primitive form of transubstaintiation himself. (Which is that the bread and wine don't change "in appearance" but rather in substance.). There is nothing in the Saint's writings to contradict this. (At least that I've seen so far).
This is the claim of Tradition. Let me close with a word about that here: it (Tradition) is properly understood as a teaching passed down through the ages. From teacher to student unbroken from the time of the Great Teacher Himself. So when this is divorced from either the proper interpretation of Scripture or EVEN from the readings of the ECF's, all manners of doctrines and beliefs can creep into the mind.
It truly does come down to this: One either rejects what the Church teaches, in favor of what one wishes to believe, or not. THIS is where real faith manifests. This is also why it can be said that faith is truly a method of knowledge, based in the true "I", and not on any other power of the world, because there truly is not any reason separate from the "I" to accept what the Church teaches.
It is only in being truly honest with oneself that one can truly see how the Church answers every truly authentic human need, that is, She truly fills the infinite desire that God made us to possess.
Without such awareness, there is no need for the Church and her teachings (or really, we bury and substitute that true need with other things, such as our own inventions), and thus, the writings of men like St. Augustine (one of the greatest converts to the Church by the way his personal story is certainly worth reading on its own), even his writings can come to mean whatever one wishes, in such a sea of discord. A sea born from one truly not aware of his own God created humanity.