Replies

Note:(I’m pinging Iscool since this will also answer his question - later on- of what the bread and the wine is the figure of in Augustine’s work.)

FourtySeven writes: “IOW, we Catholics interpret that sentence to say, “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat...”

A ridiculous conclusion! If this is what happens “when” we eat the meat, it does not follow that the meat is eaten “already” by believing, against those who prepare teeth and stomach:

“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)”

If this is what “happens when” you eat the meat, you would have prepared your teeth and stomach, and presumably it would only happen on a Sunday and not “already” through faith (though Augustine celebrated the Lord’s Supper, apparently, every single day). Also look at the line even previous to that. We’re talking about faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in the Eucharist:

“’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.’” (Augustine, Tractate 25)

The line you quoted begins right after these, so it is clear that Augustine isn’t just kidding when he asserts that we eat by believing.

It’s just utterly strange that we must sit here and explain something so simple that should be figured out by reading the whole text. This is why it’s important to read these quotes in their entire context, so you don’t wrest a single line out of Augustine the way they [Catholicism] so often do with the scripture.

Here’s another instance of this “believe, and thou hast eaten already” in Tractate 26:

“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)

You continue:

“But this is why I’ve said before that the historical framework in which this (and other Augustinian works) have been written cannot and should not be ignored, to whit, the man’s own personal history AND the Church (even at that time) Tradition to which he converted.”

I think just as important as understanding the historical framework is reading a text in context! But as to historical framework of the “church’ tradition: This presupposes one monolithic tradition that everyone believed in. Reading through the early church “Fathers,” I cannot come to the conclusion that they all agreed with each other or were under threat from one monolithic authority in Rome that they had to agree with. In fact, the Bishop in Rome didn’t even understand himself as the sole successor of Peter and supreme head over the entire church until a long time after. On the other hand, we have others reading John 6 in exactly the same way Augustine does. For example, Tertullian:

“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: ‘The flesh profits nothing.’” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chpt. 37)

And keep in mind, it is upon the authority of the Roman interpretation of John 6 that the breaking of bread done “in remembrance of me” is transformed into “a ritual for eternal life.”

“Given THAT context, his words carry a clear meaning which I have described before which is, that the Eucharist is literally Christ’s body, understood in the spiritual SENSE, not the PHYSICAL sense, but still LITERALLY His Body nonetheless.”

I would have been less offended by such a definition if not for the “literally His body.” Since we can say that Christ is present in the mind of the believer with the Eucharist, but not that He is literally present there. Augustine could not have held such a view, especially since his focus is never on the power of the Eucharist in and of itself to do anything, but what must be spiritually understood from the experience.

“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, Sermon 227)

Notice that if the bread and wine were literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, as if His spirit dwelled there, there would be no need for it to ‘signify’ that invisible reality of Christ’s spirit. It would spiritually “be” Christ, and it would spiritually be eaten. Your view also ignores the central meaning of the Eucharist in Augustine’s mind to begin with.

In both sermon 227 and 272, Augustine asserts that what is placed on the table is not just the body of Christ... it is ALSO us. The bread and wine represents the entire body of Christ.

“So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). 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)

It’s a little bit more clear how his metaphor works in sermon 227:

“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. In this loaf of bread you are given clearly to understand how much you should love unity. I mean, was that loaf made from one grain? Weren’t there many grains of wheat? But before they came into the loaf they were all separate; they were joined together by means of water after a certain amount of pounding and crushing. Unless wheat is ground, after all, and moistened with water, it can’t possibly get into this shape which is called bread. In the same way you too were being ground and pounded, as it were, by the humiliation of fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. 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.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)

(Note the “sacrament of the Holy Spirit” as well. He did not think the oil was really the Holy Spirit. It simply symbolized the Holy Spirit.)

So we cannot say that we also are spiritually present in the Eucharist, though this eating of the bread and wine was how one visibly signified their membership in the church:

“And in another place he says about this eucharist itself, We, though many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). So you are beginning to receive what you have also begun to be, provided you do not receive unworthily; else you would be eating and drinking judgment upon yourselves.” (Augustine, Sermon 228B)

However, it is through spiritual “understanding” that this is really accomplished, which all sacraments were designed to bring to mind:

“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.” (Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 99)

Besides the “sacrament of the Holy Spirit,” note also 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.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)

In this way we can begin to understand how Augustine employed Sacraments in the church, not as rituals that give some kind of saving grace or transubstantiated what they represented, but which are physical and visible pictures to understand spiritual truths that are far beyond the mere physical celebration.

I’ll also add one final thing. If the bread and wine is both substantially what it is, while also spiritually the “literal” body of Christ due to Christ’s spirit dwelling there, then it can still be said that we hold Christ in our hands every time we partake in communion. However, according to Augustine, we have never actually held Christ with our hands:

“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)

And if Christ really is “literally” in our hands, then when Augustine says “The Lord is risen!” on Easter, he means that Christ is literally risen that day, since it’s the same type of “spiritual” language. But he does not:

“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)

Augustine’s connection here between his manner of speaking regarding Easter with his “certain manner” of speaking with the Eucharist, as well as the statements of its “resemblance” to what they signify, further damages the idea that Augustine believed in the local presence of Christ within the Eucharist.