Replies

Greetings:

I am well aware of the early Fathers quoting certain NT books, those same early Fathers also quote the Deuterocanonicals, and there are some NT books not quoted at all as there are some of the proto-canonical books not quoted at all. Just a quick summary, Clement of Rome cites MT, MK, and Luke, Acts, 1 Cor, 1 Peter, Titus and Hebrews along with Romans. Of the OT, he cites Wisdom, Num, Deut. The Didache cites Sirach, Tobit, and Wisdom from the OT along with Deut, Proverbs, Exodus. The Gospel of Mt is cited frequently along with 1 Peter, 2 John, 2 Thess, Revelation. Luke is also cited at least 1 time. Ignatius cites from very few OT books at all [Psalms is 1 he does site, he does cite from 8 or 9 NT books. Polycarp, who new the Apostle John sites from Tobit among the OT, not too many others, and cites 17 to 18 or so NT books.

Saint Irenaeaus who you cited cites from Wisdom and the portions of Daniel found in the LXX. Again, he cites from the Deuterocaonicals.

So if you are going to play the cite game, then all those early Fathers cited heavily from the Deuterocanonicals, and 2 of them, based on the scholarly consensus new 2 of the Apostles [CLement new Saint Paul; and Polycarp new Saint John]

No I am not avoiding anything. None of the Church Fathers rejected Rome and Primacy. The issue you are debating is how Matthew 16:18 related to the Primacy of Rome and how Rome may have used it in how it defined primacy or exercised said Primacy. That is the only debate about Matthew 16:18. As for Klaus, that is his view, maybe individual Christians if you asked them that question, they may have answered it in the way he speculates they would. We will never know, he obviously is a Catholic who wants to downplay Primacy, for what reason, perhaps like many post Vatican II Catholics, a weaker notion of Primacy, which many of the higher critic Catholic Scholars have been screaming about, will allow them to push the Catholic Church towards what the Church of England now looks like. There is nothing in those “Catholic” writers that you cite that is surprising. There are plenty of those guys around. Fr. Charles Curran did not like Humanae Vitae so he challenged Rome’s Primacy, Fr. Hans Kung challenged the notion of Primacy, ordination reserved only for me, along with Humae Vitae, and he was no longer considered a theologian in good standing [same with Curran]. Fr. Sullivan, who you cited, is also in the “theological camp” of Kung and Curran.

As for Single Bishops, at least one NT Church had a “single Leader” that would be James at Jerusalem. From the others it is pure speculation why there were not single leaders “overseers” although Saint Paul tells Titus to rebuke with all authority [Titus 2:15] and in 1 Timothy 5:20 he tells Timothy to Reprimand[rebuke] publicly who sin [the presbyters under Timothy’s leadership]. In other words, the notion of a single Bishop [Overseer] is in the NT in at least those 3 instances. As to why there is no evidence of a single Bishop at every NT Church, well as long as the Apostles were leaving, they would still be consulted, also culturally, perhaps in some areas a group of presbyters fit the local culture better and those who had groups of presbyters could always appeal back to an Apostle. As the Apostles died, the question that has to be asked is why did the basic model laid out by Saint Paul in the pastoral epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus become the dominate model so quickly. Even in the Letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Polycarp, we see what is likely a model that came from the Apostle John because those Churches [Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, see Revelation 2 and 3] all had single Bishops and Saint Ignatius writing from Antioch [also a NT Church] was the single Bishop.

So the model of a single Bishop and Overseer is indeed in the NT, it is just uneven as to where it becomes the norm. By the early 2nd Century, it is the norm in the entire Church. Now, the issue you are trying to make is when did “Rome have a single Bishop”. That is hard to tell from direct evidence. At least by 140AD when Saint Pius was Pope as indicated by the Muratorian Fragment, which states that that Shepherd of the Hermas is not read in the Roman Church’s Liturgy since it was written in recent times when Pius had the “Chair of the Church in Rome”. Further, that language implies that the notion of “Chair of the Church in Rome” was a common usage and that there has always been a person who held “said Chair”.

Yes, I know St. Ignatius does not address a Bishop in Rome, but rather the Church of Rome as presiding in Charity. That does not mean there was no Bishop in Rome. It just means Saint Ignatius wrote the letter that way, perhaps knowing that naming the Bishop of Rome would immediately put his life in jeopardy.

The entire early Church in the 2nd Century clearly saw the Letter of CLement as being written by him as the Leader of the Church of Rome. Critical scholars look at the text and say well, Clement does not write his name on it thus we can determine from the internal evidence that he was the single Bishop of Rome. But you can’t saw he was not either.

Raymond Brown is a loose Canon, whom you cited. Yes he was being censured in some regards. Again, I have the New Jerome Commentary which he was 1 of the 3 Editors [for the record, had he alone edited it, I would not have purchased it]. He was a higher critic type Biblical scholar and those guys, as Pope Benedict noted in his Jesus of Nazareth 3 Volume series have done some “good scholarship” but their approach in general is limited and in reality has not made major contributions to theology and our understanding better the person of Jesus Christ [I am summarizing the Emeritus Pope Benedict here].

Not to attack you personally but as for higher critic Catholic Scholars, I have less use for them than Protestant higher critical ones [it started in German Protestantism in the 19th century so it comes from the Protestant tradition] because they should know better and be guided to serve the Church and look at Creeds, earlier commentaries from the Great Theologians of the Church, COuncils and use their scholarship to compliment those other methods of reading scripture, not the modern critical perspective alone. Just to clarify, I have no problem with “critical scholarship” when it is connected to the broader Catholic Theological and Biblical Tradition. When it stands alone apart from it, well, you get Fr. Curran, Fr. Hans Kung, Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Francis Sullivan, Fr.Fleger of Chicago [although he has toned down a bit, good work by Cardinal George of Chicago]

As for the rebaptized of those who were baptized in heterodox Churches, whatever Cyprian and the Pope’s opinions were, it was Rome’s view that ultimately was the orthodox one and even Saint Augustine, when writing against the Donatists, made theological arguments that some sacraments are valid outside the visible Catholic Church. The Council of Nicea would define what Rome in essence taught ealier, there is one Baptism and if done using the Holy Trinity and water, even if done outside of the visible Church, the Church would not rebaptize.

As for Marcion, he was from the East and brought his heresy to Rome from the East. In fact, there are some who state that if Father, a Bishop in the East was so done with him that he kicked out the house due to his theology.

As for the statement about Rome and Orthodoxy. I have never said Rome can do as it pleases. I said Rome has a Primacy. That is the Doctrine. What can be debated and discussed is how can “said Primacy” be exercised in a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. This is not new. Pope John Paul II in Ut Unam Sint basically proposed this question to the Orthodox. Pope Benedict has said the same thing. How can Primacy of Rome [not negotiable] be “exercised in terms of ministry” with a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. that is the question. And note, I made no such claims as to how it would be exercised with you Protestants. That is long gone and will never happen.

The fact that the Patriarch of Constantinopile asked Pope Francis to meet him in Jerusalem to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras [spelling] meeting 50 years ago is a good sign. The fact that the Patriarch and Emeritus Pope Benedict a few years back recited the Nicene Creed together at Mass [using the Greek edition, for the record] is a good sign. What Pope Benedict was saying is that Rome will not impose the Latin version of the Creed, with the Filoque [which is orthodox doctrine] on the Greek Church when saying the Liturgy together as both understanding of how the Holy Spirit is sent are complimentary theologies, not opposed, they just reflect different ways of expressing the same doctrine.

I am really not interested in what protestants think about Primacy. I am not. I am more interested in how Catholic and Orthodox can find a solution to how Primacy can be exercised in a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church.

As for your arguments about middle ground or not. That is protestant internet polemics. Not interested in it at all. Peter was first among the Apostles, there are plenty of NT texts that clearly indicate this in addition to Mt 16:18. Rome as chief and had the 1st primacy in the early Church, even before Nicea named 3 in Canon 6 [and note the language, giving ALexandria and Antioch a primacy like Rome] but nowhere was Rome’s primacy ever really defined. even before Nicea, Rome was using a basic form of Primacy, although in one instance, perhaps used incorrectly in the case of Pope Victor. However, the Roman way of celebrating pascha/Easter would be the way that the Council of Nicea defined some 140 years later, for the record. So Pope Victor was somewhat arrogant in his use of Primacy. Primacy needs to be rooted in service and Love [per Jesus command to his Apostles] and as noted by Saint Ignatius of Antioch [Church of Rome presides in Love].

I will not argue about Transubstantiation because it will do not good. Here is a quote from an Eastern Orthodox Theologian and it is not a problem for the Catholic Church [for the record, an Eastern Orthodox Christian can take Communion in a Catholic Church]. Transubstantiation is clearly only a Latin Theological term. In this sense, Rome would not ever require the Orthodox to use that term to describe what happens during the Eucharistic prayer. So in this quote we See the Eastern Orthodox describing the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ:

“In the East, however, the culminating point of the prayer is not in the remembrance of Christ’s act but in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which immediately follows: “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts here spread forth, and make this bread to be the precious Body of Thy Christ... .” Thus, the central mystery of Christianity is seen as being performed by the prayer of the church and through an invocation of the Spirit. The nature of the mystery that occurs in the bread and wine is signified by the term metabole (”sacramental change”). The Western term transubstantiation occurs only in some confessions of faith after the 17th century.”

Now note, the “Western term” appears... Now, what this is describing is the Epiclesis [calling upon the Holy Spirit. If you read the links below under the label “epiclesis”, you will see the same notion of calling upon the Holy Spirit in all Catholic Liturgical prayers.

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm

Where Catholic Theology differs from the Eastern Orthodox, only in degree, not substance, is that Catholic theology uses the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodoxy does not attempt to define it, but leaves it in the realm of Holy Mystery.

Below are links to one of the chief Liturgies of the Orthodox Church, the first 1 is the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrystostem. The 2nd Link is a theological explanation from the Orthodox Church of America on the Eucharist. Nothing in it that I was a Catholic disagree with. The 3rd link is from the Orthodox Church of America regarding Holy Orders [Bishops/Priests/Deacons]. Again, nothing that I disagree with as a Catholic. The 4th link is an Orthodox explanation of the epiclesis, which I linked earlier in the context of the Roman Liturgy and Catholic Church. Link is one on the Eucharistic prayer. Nothing again that presents a problem for me as a Catholic. In fact, the Orthodox priest is saying the Eucharist ad orientalem, which is the classic posture in the Roman Rite before the change at Vatican II whereby the Priest faced the assembly vs. facing “allegorical East”. Personally, I like the ad orientalem posture at Liturgy and wish the Roman Rite would use it more often.

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-orders

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/epiklesis

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/eucharistic-canon-anaphora

The Catholic Liturgy is linked below, if you look at it, the basic structure of the Roman Liturgy is the same as the Orthodox Liturgy. Where the Eucharistic Rite is in the following link, the Eucharistic prayers that I linked earlier are what is said at that part of the Liturgy.

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm#Introductory

I have read every Liturgical writing in the patristic period and all of them are in the basic structure and in fact, have specifically the same prayers, as the Roman Liturgy of today. The Didache, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome and Cyril of Jerusalem all have Liturgical writings. So proper worship is Liturgical, and for me Catholic Liturgy, which is centered on the Eucharist and a set order of prayers that conveys the “symbola” of faith [Creeds, etc] and the public reading of scriptures, all together is true worship. Orthodox have true worship and for that reason, the Catholic Church sees the Orthodox as having valid Eucharist.

I used the Orthodox here because there is no basis for protestant polemics against Rome. For if you are going to criticize us, then you need to criticize them. They have the same belief in the Eucharist as we Catholics. The only difference is they do not use the “Latin term transubstantiation” to try to define the change that take place during the “epiclesis”. If there is a criticism of Eastern Theology, it can be that they tend to not define too things and that is why, in my opinion, most if not all the major heresies of the early Church tended to start in the East. If there can be a criticism of Roman-Latin theology, is that we sometimes tend to over-define [that would be the criticism from the Greek tradition] because you will always have a hard time coming up with an appropriate word to describe something that is ultimately “Holy Mystery” [to use the Greek Orthodox terminology]. Nevertheless, regardless of the Latin usage of Transubstantiation, the Orthodox, without the use of that term, have the same doctrine of the Holy Eucharist as we Catholics. It in no way reflects Reformed, Lutheran or even Traditional Anglican views of it, which at times can be close to the Catholic and Orthodox view.

Now as I wrote to another poster in another thread [I will not bring that debate here, but it is related to the Eucharist], among the Protestants, the Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed all are closer to historic worship than the rest of Protestants. All of you retain some degree of Liturgy with Eucharist, Creed, Scripture. Protestantism beyond those 3 and what they call worship is only partially worship. All it really involves in Teaching a sermon and songs. That is partially worship but not Liturgy. Now, those who go to those types of Protestant churches I am sure are going in good faith, but the early Church was a Church that viewed Liturgy as the most important action of the Church, the worship of God a the public Liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist.

So while I think it is clear “that you and I will Never totally agree”, I do acknowledge that you do have a stronger belief in the Eucharist and Sacramental Presence of Christ in the Eucharist than found in the majority of Protestantism which is basically Pentecostal and non-confessional reformed.

With that said, ok, you disagree with Catholics and our doctrine of the Eucharist [you also disagree with the Eastern Orthodox]. Things like Killing Christ again or re-sacrificing Christ and cannibalism, etc, is excessive rhetoric that makes this place a zoo at times. So if you disagree, ok, you disagree, but many of your cohort are over the top [maybe not you]

I think any honest reading of the NT Gospels and Saint Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians will see a strong foundation for Eucharistic Doctrine. A reading of the early Church Fathers will only reinforce that an indicates how men who new the Apostles viewed the Liturgy [i.e. Clement of Rome most likely new Saint Paul], Saint Polycarp was a disciple of Saint John, and Igantius of Antioch was a pupil of Polycarp, etc. and thus the Eucharist. The Liturgy and Eucharist are continually written about throughout the Patristic period and the Canons of all the Councils have in their canons teachings about the Eucharist and other sacraments.

So the Catholic position on the Eucharist is well founded as is the Orthodox. For protestants who have a view of real presence of the Eucharist that is not quite 100% the Catholic view or even the Orthodox view [I believe theirs is 100% consistent with ours], yet still hold to sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist [as many Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed actually do], I have no problem with you guys stating something to the effect that I think the Catholic view of the Eucharist has a basis in the NT and Church Fathers [we also see a sacramental or real presence], I just think that Catholic theologians of the 2nd millennium in trying to define what happens during the “epiclesis” was not something that needed to happen because any term you use [in this case Transubstantiation] would never be adequate enough to fully define it. That is a fair criticism and one that I think the Orthodox actually hold to. They just leave it as a Holy Mystery, don’t define what happens in the epiclesis, but again, they end up in the same place as we Catholics do in terms how they understand the Real Presence of Christ, it is under the forms of bread and wine, his true Body and Blood.

Finally, with respect to John Chapter 6, I linked Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Patristic Commentary on the Gospels which Cardinal Newman translated into English. The commentary is an excellent one. In no way does that commentary, a summary of all the Patristic commentaries on John 6, reject the Eucharistic presence of Christ or treat it as a mere symbol. In fact, there is one quote by Saint Augustine in their that connects this passage to Faith and works of Love as being connected.

http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/John

Again, with respect to Fathers of the Church, if 1 Father says it, I read it, but if the Church does not define that 1 Fathers theology as authoritative, then it is 1 Father. Now that 1 Father’s theology can be acceptable as a way to understand a doctrine, but not the only way. If 2, 3 or 4, Fathers say the same thing, then it has more weight, If 10 or more, etc, more weight. Now if the Pope or a Council defines anything from a Father’s theological writings as an orthodox way of explaining a Doctrine, then that has higher authority with me than anything else.

I'm not sure what game you, in fact, are playing, as this has nothing to do with what I said. You suggested that the New Testament was somehow up in the air. If you concede that the early church were highly familiar with the books of the New Testament, then they knew what the scripture was, regardless of the status of the apocrypha.

By the way, why did you rob Ignatius of his relationship with John the Apostle? Is it because he said that the head of the Bishop is God?

This is like saying: "You've only wiped out my army, taken me captive, and have tortured me for the past 24 hours. You have not won the war."

Ignoring your, well, ignoring of the evidence presented (I've gotten used to it), a failure to uphold Matthew 16:18 means the death of Catholicism. It is the foundation of Rome's theological assertions of power, without which their claims are merely political in nature.

If all you want to do is debate politics with me on why I should follow Rome, then start a thread in a political section of the forum. The religion forum is for proper theology.

As for Klaus, that is his view, maybe individual Christians if you asked them that question, they may have answered it in the way he speculates they would. We will never know, he obviously is a Catholic who wants to downplay Primacy,

I like how you pick and choose people to quote from and then treat it like all we have to do is demean them to avoid the substance of their writing. Now I know what to do when you quote Kelly and other random people at me in the future. I can just play your game and get out of commenting on the issue entirely.

It just means Saint Ignatius wrote the letter that way, perhaps knowing that naming the Bishop of Rome would immediately put his life in jeopardy.

I've heard Papists say this before, but it's always struck me as very absurd. It would mean that Ignatius had no problem identifying people and praising them in great detail in all the other churches, as if he didn't care if they were kidnapped and murdered, but couldn't even mask a compliment to his "head," the Pope!

IOW, Rome was not authoritative in the matter, only the church council had the ultimate say so, exactly as Augustine said.

As for the statement about Rome and Orthodoxy. I have never said Rome can do as it pleases.

This statement literally makes huge sections of your previous post completely useless. If Rome cannot do "all that it pleases" in terms of setting doctrine or excommunication, then all your talk about Popes acting "autocratically" or excommunicating people is just all laid to waste.

That is the Doctrine.

Not according to you. Matt 16:18 doesn't matter, remember?

How can Primacy of Rome [not negotiable] be “exercised in terms of ministry” with a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. that is the question. And note, I made no such claims as to how it would be exercised with you Protestants. That is long gone and will never happen.

So HERE is the true rub, eh? So all this talk that sounded like the Roman definition of Primacy was negotiable was just a sham? And all we've been talking about is what color lipstick to put on the pig? But remember how you started on all this to begin with: The differing definitions of Peter the "rock" and the alleged primacy of Rome found in the church Fathers. Despite all the various assertions you've made throughout your post (and it is too tedious to point at them all), you've not really dealt with anything yet. I consider this my win then by forfeiture of my opponent. Standing outside the ring talking at me doesn't make you the winner!

What Pope Benedict was saying is that Rome will not impose the Latin version of the Creed, with the Filoque [which is orthodox doctrine] on the Greek Church when saying the Liturgy together as both understanding of how the Holy Spirit is sent are complimentary theologies, not opposed, they just reflect different ways of expressing the same doctrine.

Perhaps that is what your Pope believes, but it is a very deceptive statement fogging Eastern-Western differences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_%E2%80%93_Roman_Catholic_theological_differences#Extant_disputes_as_seen_by_Orthodox_theologians

The differences aren't cosmetic. They are very fundamental.

I am really not interested in what protestants think about Primacy. I am not.

Taking your ball and going home? About time!

So now you want to talk about Matt 16:18 again? Can you please go and address the Church Fathers on this issue? By the way, note your logic: You confess that Rome as "Chief" was never "defined." (To be more accurate, it is better to say that it was defined, just not defined as you would like it.) And you even declare that "primacy" was misused, right after using the same example as evidence of primacy! (You just changed your tune since Victor didn't get his way.) Do you not realize how self-destructive your own constant assertions are?

As for Easter. In your first paragraph you told me that Polycarp knew John. You do realize that it was Polycarp who opposed a previous Roman Bishop on the issue, did NOT change his position, and declared his celebration of Easter to be in line with the Apostles?

Why did the Pope abandon the tradition that was handed from John to Polycarp?

"For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html

I will not argue about Transubstantiation because it will do not good.

You have to: You are claiming (as will be seen) that the view of the early church on the Eucharist is the same as the modern one. That simply isn't true.

I used the Orthodox here because there is no basis for protestant polemics against Rome. For if you are going to criticize us, then you need to criticize them.

Who says I don't? But on Popery, they are quite correct.

In fact, there is one quote by Saint Augustine in their that connects this passage to Faith and works of Love as being connected.

Is that all? Shows how sloppy Aquinas was then. To begin, Calvin's suprasubstantiation is, in fact, entirely stolen from Augustine. This view upholds the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, maintaining that the body of Christ is His body, and the cup is His blood, while denying transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in the eucharist to receive "saving" grace. Observe:

Augustine - Against Transubstantiation

From Augustine’s commentary on the verses in John 6 which are traditionally Rome’s proof texts for the necessity of oral consumption of Christ — The body and blood of Christ consumed through faith without eating or drinking. Believe, saith Augustine, and thou hast eaten already.

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor 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. (Augustine, Tractate 25)

The fact that Christ may be consumed by faith, even without the eating of the bread and wine, is fatal to Roman Catholicism’s teachings on transubstantiation.

Compare with Father John Bartunek, LC., whose interpretation requires the actual use of “teeth and stomach”:

“This was the perfect opportunity for Christ to say, “Wait a minute, what I really meant was that my body and blood will just be symbolized by bread and wine. Of course I didn’t mean that bread and wine really would become my body and blood. Don’t be foolish!” The strange thing is he doesn’t say that. He does not water down his claim, as if eating his flesh were just a metaphor for believing in his doctrine; on the contrary, he reiterates the importance of really eating his flesh and drinking his blood.”

http://rcspiritualdirection.com/blog/2012/08/15/258-eating-right-jn-652-59#ixzz2pZMDVk3c

Augustine, writing on his “rule for interpreting commands,” calls the eating of Christ to be figurative, since otherwise it compels us to do something that is unlawful.

“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. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, He who loves his life shall lose it, we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, Let him lose his life— that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, help not a sinner. Understand, therefore, that sinner is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 16)

When the Eucharist is offered, it is ourselves who we receive. (Are we transubstantiated into the bread?) A spiritual lesson is to be received from it, which is the purpose of the sacrament.

“How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood? The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you.” (Augustine, Sermon 272)

Take special note for Augustine’s definition of what a sacrament actually is. Let’s continue. Same theme, different sermon:

“I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)

(The Catholics will often quote the first part of this sermon, but will not attempt to discuss the lesson of it.)

In fact, throughout this sermon, sacraments are tools to impart spiritual lessons. For example, the sacrament of the Holy Spirit (oil), but it is not actually the Holy Spirit:

“Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.” (Same as above)

Another, the sacrament of the kiss of peace:

“After that comes Peace be with you; a great sacrament, the kiss of peace. So kiss in such a way as really meaning that you love. Don’t be Judas; Judas the traitor kissed Christ with his mouth, while setting a trap for him in his heart. But perhaps somebody has unfriendly feelings toward you, and you are unable to win him round, to show him he’s wrong; you’re obliged to tolerate him. Don’t pay him back evil for evil in your heart. He hates; just you love, and you can kiss him without anxiety.” (Same as above)

The Eucharist, which symbolizes both the entire church and Christ, “not really consumed.” The Eucharist signifies an invisible reality, and is not that reality. Christians should take the spiritual lesson of unity from the Lord’s supper. Also from sermon 227.

“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)

To believe in Christ is to eat the living bread. This cannot be so if transubstantiation is true.

“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)

The body of Christ not held by any believer, even in the sacrament. Christ is held in the heart, and not in the hand. This cannot be so if transubstantation is true.

“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.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)

Christ must be understood spiritually, not carnally.

“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 things cannot be so if transubstantiation is the historical Christian interpretation.

In another place, he tells us that it is weakness to interpret the sign as being what it signifies:

“To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 9)

In still another place, he calls referring to the Eucharist as the “body and blood of Christ” as only a “certain manner” of speaking, the act itself obviously being non-literal, but spiritual only:

“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? 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)