I wouldn’t disagree much with this, and I am not sure it is terribly different than Luther’s view. I would disagree that Scripture is one source of revelation. I believe Scripture to be the only form of revelation the Church has access to.
Mary as the new Eve is another topic. I wish everyone could tell when the interpretation was bunk. We would not have issues with homosexual marriage and all the other heresies.
I wouldn’t disagree with you about the Supper being the central aspect of worship. I wasn’t talking about that, though, I was talking about styles of liturgy.
Styles are not as important as content. Styles can vary with time and location. Content should not.
Could you reference where in that epistle Ignatius mentions this?
There are a lot of aspects of the liturgy that are considered disciplinary in nature, and subject to change when there are reasons for doing so. The only essential is the act of Consecration itself, which goes back to Apostolic times - the wording is the same wording that St. Paul records in I Corinthians 11.
No disagreement here.
And the Catholic Church holds that Scripture is public revelation and only public revelation is binding on everyone. Jesus may tell you something but I do not have to listen. What is recorded in Scripture, I do, and so do you.
If prima scritura is closer to Luther’s position, where the heck did sola (in the sctrict understanding) come from?
Well, I think you have to remember that Rome at that time probably did not practice anything remotely like the definition of prima scriptura you gave
What makes you say that? My observation of the writings of the time is that the majority of people were very familiar with the Bible. Those who couldn’t read learned the stories from street theatre and from the stained glass windows and other artwork in their churches, as well as from hearing passages of Scripture read out at Mass, and discussed in homilies, etc.
(How else could Luther have convinced so many of them that the Pope was the Antichrist, unless they were familiar with the Bible, and knew what that term was referring to?)
I have never seen anyone who did not believe faith along “attack Paul.” Paul didn’t even believe in faith alone.
Take it in context with Augustine’s theology. He most certainly believed in Transubstantiation.
“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.” (Sermons 234:2)“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice the blood of Christ.” (Sermons 272)
Did Augustine believe in the Real Presence
I ahve seen people attacking the slanted view of Paul used by some Fatih Alone folks. Perhaps that is what he had in mind.
On the contrary MarcoPolo, I suspect you need to readjust your understanding of Augustine’s theology to take into account this clear statement by him. Do you, or do you not, agree with Augustine when he clearly indicated that eating Jesus’s flesh would be a crime or a vice? How do you reconcile that clear position from Augustine with your assertion that he held to transubstantiation? Please keep in mind that when Augustine made that statement he was well familiar with the Eucharist, he had in mind the cross of Christ, was considering John 6:53 and in that context Augustine concluded that the requirement to eat the flesh of Jesus was “therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” I wholeheartedly agree with Augustine, do you?
I note you quote from Augustine’s sermon 272. Here is the full paragraph that includes your quote:
One thing is seen, another is to be understood. What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard. So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ. It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction. The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9). I mean, you can now say to me, “You’ve bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand.” Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody’s mind: “We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man’s estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. That’s where he lifted his body up to; that’s where he’s going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that’s where he is now, seated on the Father’s right. 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 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. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.
If one reads the whole paragraph and not just the piece that you quoted, one sees that Augustine is in fact saying:
The bread = Jesus’s body = believers = the bread on the Lord’s table.
Augustine is not saying that Jesus’s body is really on the Lord’s table and that the participant eats Jesus’s body any more than he is saying that the believers (who he is addressing) are really on the Lord’s table and that they are eating themselves.
Did Augustine believe in the Real Presence
He is saying both…we, the Church are sacrificed since the Church is His body, and he clearly teaches that although under the appearance of bread (what our eyes tell us), we know by faith that it is Jesus Christ. I did not misread it. The Catholic Church happens to still teach both of those concepts today (cf. CCC# 1333, 1368. It is not an either-or proposition. To interpret him as denying the Real Presence here makes him contradict himself elsewhere too.
I recommend reading more on Augustine. Here is a good article including the quotations I had, plus many, many more on Augustine’s belief in the Real Presence.
I am not saying that it was an either or proposition. I am saying that he is speaking figuratively in saying that the bread is the body of Christ and in saying that the believers are the body of Christ.
To interpret him as denying the Real Presence here makes him contradict himself elsewhere too.
On the contrary, a figurative interpretation is consistent with Augustine’s assertion that the requirement to eat Jesus’s flesh must be understood figuratively. On the other hand, transubstantiation is inconsistent with that assertion from Augustine.
I note you never answered my questions, so here they are again.
Do you, or do you not, agree with Augustine when he clearly indicated that eating Jesus’s flesh would be a crime or a vice?
How do you reconcile that clear position from Augustine with your assertion that he held to transubstantiation?
He is referring to dead (unspiritual) flesh - it would be a crime to do that.
We consume Jesus in His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine - which is what St. Augustine tells us elsewhere.
What St. Augustine is driving at here is that Jesus does not become bread and wine, but rather, that the bread and wine no longer exist (even though their appearances do) and that Jesus is fully present in a spiritual manner - a more real manner (NOT a symbolic manner!! because that would be a less real manner) under the appearances of bread and wine. This is, in fact, the definition of transubstantiation. Because of this, it is impossible to say that St. Augustine didn’t believe in transubstantiation, since he describes it perfectly.
The part I am most interested in seeing addressed (cuz I’m pressed for time right this moment ) is Radical’s claim: “Augustine is not saying that Jesus’s body is really on the Lord’s table and that the participant eats Jesus’s body…”
I will not have too much time to respond today…could you cite for me again the quote of Augustine’s you are referring?
I have started another thread on this topic over here if you’d like to participate. Since I’m not able to answer much right this second, I’m sure there are other well-versed brethren here who can today.
In Tractate 26, which deals with John 6:41-59, Augustine says:
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 ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you. …… 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. …. 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….This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth].
Please note how Augustine identifies the eating of Jesus’s flesh required in verse 53 with the eating that occurs in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
As previously pointed out, Augustine held that the eating of Jesus’s flesh required in verse 53 must be understood figuratively and not literally, otherwise Jesus’s would be requiring his followers to commit a crime/vice. As such, because Augustine identified that eating of Jesus’s flesh with the Eucharist, Augustine held that the eating of Jesus’s flesh in the Eucharist must be understood figuratively and not literally, otherwise Jesus’s would be requiring his followers to commit a crime/vice. Do you agree with Augustine in this regard? Where does Augustine mention any dead flesh?
Wow, I totally don’t see what you are saying here. He seems to be saying that those who are not in Christ get no benefit from eating. I am now confused.
That’s how I understood it too, with the corrollary that those who eat and drink the Eucharist thereby become fully united not only with Christ but also with the whole Church. There is nothing here that contradicts the idea of Transubstantiation, and much that foreshadows it.
I noticed that too. IT really is a beautiful passage. I guess the problem is that we are reading a Catholic’s writings through Catholic eyes.