Replies

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.

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.

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

First for the reader of our "chat" the works of St. Augustine you refer to are here.

Secondly, here the quote you imagine is so devastating for the Catholic teaching is in fact not so devastating as I have explained to you before, but again, for those not on that thread: That quote is referring to John 6:29, "“Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent".

Here then we can clearly see the context that St. Augustine is speaking in, which is that FIRST, belief in Jesus is required for Salvation! When the Saint speaks "believe, and you have eaten already", he is NOT speaking about the Eucharist, rather, what Augustine is saying here is that the Jews must seek after Jesus FIRST, BELIEVE in Him FIRST, not seeking after any CARNAL "bread" that just filled their bellies. Remember, they (the crowd) were just filled by the miracle of the loaves and the fishes at this time, and Jesus knew that they were following Him around because they sought a man who would always do this for them (John 6:26).

So Saint Augustine, in the quote you continue to hammer, is himself hammering home the importance of faith in Jesus, a faith so important to obtain that it even supplants the carnal need for food. That is what is meant by that quote, "believe and ye have eaten already".

HOW can I say that, well, it's quite simple, because of what he (Augustine) goes on to say about the entire chapter. Specifically, let's take what he says about John 5:53. Paragraph 15 of Tractate 26:

"But that which they ask, while striving among themselves, namely, how the Lord can give His flesh to be eaten, they do not immediately hear: but further it is said to them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you.” How, indeed, it may be eaten, and what may be the mode of eating this bread, you are ignorant of; nevertheless, “except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will not have life in you.” He spoke these words, not certainly to corpses, but to living men. Whereupon, lest they, understanding it to mean this life, should strive about this thing also, He going on added, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.” Wherefore, he that eats not this bread, nor drinks this blood, has not this life; for men can have temporal life without that, but they can noways have eternal life. He then that eats not His flesh, nor drinks His blood, has no life in him; and he that eats His flesh, and drinks His blood, has life. This epithet, eternal, which He used, answers to both. It is not so in the case of that food which we take for the purpose of sustaining this temporal life. For he who will not take it shall not live, nor yet shall he who will take it live. For very many, even who have taken it, die; it may be by old age, or by disease, or by some other casualty. But in this food and drink, that is, in the body and blood of the Lord, it is not so. For both he that does not take it has no life, and he that does take it has life, and that indeed eternal life. And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. Of these, the first is already effected, namely, predestination; the second and third, that is, the vocation and justification, have taken place, are taking place, and will take place; but the fourth, namely, the glorifying, is at present in hope; but a thing future in realization. The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof."

Now there is the teaching you are also claiming, namely,

And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers.

This though is precisely why I have no trouble saying that St. Augustine does NOT teach "Transubstantiation" as is taught by the Catholic Church. BUT, this distinction does not matter!

While the Saint doesn't teach what the Church teaches today exactly, he CLEARLY teaches that the "Body of Christ" is something REAL, and not a mere symbol (he just says it's the Body of Christ on Earth, i.e, the Church and the unity thereof). Again, that's immaterial for the Catholic position, but certainly weakens any claim of symbolism, no matter how distantly linked to a "sacramental" reality.

When Augustine speaks of the eucharist, its benefits are something other than for salvation, but always for our sanctification.

Certainly for sanctification, but ALSO for salvation, again from paragraph 15 of the same tractate:

"The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof."

There are many other quotes like that in these Tractates that show St. Augustine believed the Eucharist was necessary for Salvation.

And that disagrees or disproves the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist in exactly what way? The Church teaches that yes the Eucharist is in memorial of Christ, that it is the same sacrifice "once and for all". But it doesn't just "represent", but also IS that same sacrifice, which is what makes it a sacrament, i.e, something that IS what it ALSO represents. (that's the definition of a sacrament)

I still maintain one can't "sacrifice" something that's not real, certainly not in order to offer something pleasing to God. Bottom line, since you already acknowledge the Eucharist is a sacrifice (according to St. Augustine) then you must also acknowledge St. Augustine believed it to have a reality to it, a spiritual reality certainly, but that doesn't make it any less real. Spiritual realities can be and certainly are as real as any physical reality.