Fine, then if you acknowledge Augustine does not believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol, we (you and I) have no disagreement. For the Church does not state that the dogma of Transubstantiation was taught explicitly by any one Father, rather it's an understanding that can be found throughout multiple ones. Again, that Augustine doesn't preach it is not concerning, for this very reason.
However demonstrating Augustine didn't teach "Transubstantiation" is a long way from demonstrating he was some kind of "Proto-Protestant".
The quote earlier from Augustine shows little towards answering the question, "How 'Catholic' was Saint Augustine?". In other words, that quote you posted earlier (from his tractate on John) doesn't necessarily disprove the Catholic teaching at all. Neither does this one, for again, you still have the quote from the City of God to contend with, which clearly indicates the Body of Christ is a sacrifice, thus, something real, not something imagined (unless one will foolishly state an imaginary sacrifice would be pleasing to God).
It certainly does, because it reads in the exact opposite way from the Catholic interpretation of those verses from John 6. For example:
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
Clearly this priest understands Christ of speaking literally of eating the eucharist, whereas Augustine says, without any ambiguity, "why do you ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already." This view places salvation into the hands of faith, and separates us from the literalism your church teaches. When Augustine speaks regarding the eucharist, it is always in the spiritual sense, and in enjoying the communion of Christ through faith, though, physically (in contrast to spiritually), we have never touched Him or been in His presence:
“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)
Neither does this one, for again, you still have the quote from the City of God to contend with, which clearly indicates the Body of Christ is a sacrifice, thus, something real, not something imagined (unless one will foolishly state an imaginary sacrifice would be pleasing to God).
Augustine describes the Eucharist as a "sacrifice" in the sense that it represents the sacrifice that occurred "once and for all" on the cross, in the same way we say that Christ "rises again tomorrow" on Easter, even though it occurred a long time ago. This was the import of my quote which I replied with. Here is another:
“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)
Fine, then if you acknowledge Augustine does not believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol, we (you and I) have no disagreement.
We certainly do, but not on the topic of whether or not Augustine believed that the eucharist was necessary to be worshipped or was required to be eaten to be saved.
When Augustine speaks of the eucharist, its benefits are something other than for salvation, but always for our sanctification.
I wouldn't even describe him as "proto," but rather as basically not substantially different from Calvin, or Luther, or any of the other Augustinians that have lived throughout the centuries (Luther was not even the first, but only the one that got the most famous).
Debating transubstantiation is a cute endeavor, but it is not the only issue. If you like, would you like to run an experiment where I give you some quotations and ask for your Catholic reading of them-- to compare with something I will pull from Augustine?
Addendum to my last post.