Augustine

[dairygirl4u2c]

At the end of this long quotation is what catholic apologists often refer to when citing that Augustine recognized the authority of the bishop or Rome. I would like to see if anyone can find anything other than this highly ambiguous citation. I am aware of the other quote from www.catholic.com I will look into that later. As of now, that is pretty ambiguous.

If this is all we got on Augustine, that is pretty shallow.

I include the first section of the letter because it is ironic that the beginning of his letter pretty much refutes the CC's teaching on transubstantiation. At least based on this reading. ?

I have more to write later. For now you all can read this and send me you citations so I can get Augustine and the early church figured out.


Catholics like to say that protestants are dichotimizing the uses of figure and reality. But protestants could say that Catholics are dichotimizing continuted symbolisim from the intent.

Ironically from Augustine's [i]"On Christian Doctrine":[/i]

Chapter 9:
[quote]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.
[/quote]

Chapter 16:
[quote]"If a sentence seems to enjoin a crime or vice, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," Christ says, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice: it is 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."[/quote]
[url="http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb3c11-16.html"]http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb3c11-16.html[/url]



[quote]We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Savior, commending to us our Ransom, His Blood. For He spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink. The faithful recognize the Sacrament of the faithful. But the hearers what else do they but hear? When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, "Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you; " (and this that He said concerning life, who else said it but the Life Itself? But that man shall have death, not life, who shall think that the Life is false), His disciples were offended, not all of them indeed, but very many, saying within themselves, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it? " But when the Lord knew this in Himself, and heard the murmurings of their thought, He answered them, thinking though uttering nothing, that they might understand that they were heard, and might cease to entertain such thoughts. What then did He answer? "Doth this offend you?" "What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?" What meaneth this? "Doth this offend you ?" "Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? ‘ What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ?’" Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed. So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you," saith He, "that believe not." Such were they who said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" It is hard, but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous.

2. But in order to teach us that this very believing is matter of gift, not of desert, He saith, "As I have said unto you, no man cometh unto Me, except it were given him of My Father." Now as to where the Lord said this, if we call to mind the foregoing words of the Gospel, we shall find that He had said, "No man cometh unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him." He did not lead, but draw. This violence is done to the heart, not the body. Why then dost thou marvel? Believe, and thou comest; love, and thou art drawn. Do not suppose here any rough and uneasy violence; it is gentle, it is sweet; it is the very sweetness that draweth thee. Is not a sheep drawn, when fresh grass is shown to it in its hunger? Yet I imagine that it is not bodily driven on, but fast bound by desire. In such wise do thou come too to Christ; do not conceive of long journeyings; where thou believest, there thou comest. For unto Him, who is everywhere we come by love, not by sailing. But forasmuch as even in this kind of voyage, waves and tempests of divers temptations abound; believe on the Crucified; that thy faith may be able to ascend the Wood. Thou shalt not sink, but shalt be borne upon the Wood. Thus, even thus, amid the waves of this world did he sail, who said, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." [/quote]

[quote]9. This then is the righteousness of God. As it is called, "The Lord’s salvation," not whereby the Lord is saved, but which He giveth to them whom He saveth; so too the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord is called the righteousness of God, not as that whereby the Lord is righteous, but whereby He justifieth those whom of ungodly He maketh righteous. But some, as the Jews in former times, both wish to be called Christians, and still ignorant of God’s righteousness, desire to establish their own, even in our own times, in the times of open grace, the times of the full revelation of grace which before was hidden; in the times of grace now manifested in the floor, which once lay hid in the fleece. I see that a few have understood me, that more have not understood, whom I will by no means defraud by keeping silence. Gideon, one of the righteous men of old, asked for a sign from the Lord, and said, "I pray, Lord, that this fleece which I put in the floor be bedewed, and that the floor be dry." And it was so; the fleece was bedewed, the whole floor was dry. In the morning he wrung out the fleece in a basin; forasmuch as to the humble is grace given; and in a basin, ye know what the Lord did to His disciples. Again, he asked for another sign; "O Lord, I would," saith he, "that the fleece be dry, the floor bedewed." And it was so. Call to mind the time of the Old Testament, grace was hidden in a cloud, as the rain in the fleece. Mark now the time of the New Testament, consider well the nation of the Jews, thou wilt find it as a dry fleece; whereas the whole world, like that floor, is full of grace, not hidden, but manifested. Wherefore we are forced exceedingly to bewail our brethren, who strive not against hidden, but against open and manifested grace. There is allowance for the Jews. What shall we say of Christians? Wherefore are ye enemies to the grace of Christ? Why rely ye on yourselves? Why unthankful? For why did Christ come? Was not nature here before? Was not nature here, which ye only deceive by your excessive praise? Was not the Law here? But the Apostle says, "If righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain." What the Apostle says of the Law, that say we of nature to these men. "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ is dead in vain."

10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. "They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." What is, "not according to knowledge"? "For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.[/quote]
[url="http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html"]http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html[/url]

Edited March 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

Go here:
[url="http://www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=34"]http://www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=34[/url]

Scroll down to where it says "My Books: Reviews and Defense"

The link for "Catholic Legends" 5: More on "roma Locuta Est" Debating with White
talks about sermon 131 in depth.
"Catholic Legends 1" gets into the Cyprian stuff.
I would suggest browsing through many of those links because many of them talk about Augustine in depth.

Also this bad boy: [url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm[/url]
I would recommend all the stuff on this site actually:
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm[/url]

There has yet to be an adequate response from the prots against gallegos and he wrote these things years ago.

[Laudate_Dominum]

dairygirl,

I would seriously suggest putting guys like White and Webster aside and just reading the Fathers themselves. White and Webster are professional anti-Catholics with an agenda who will go to any lengths to discredit the Church in some way. You are not getting a balanced or accurate account of the Fathers. They are in the business of creating controversy and polemics. This is not a reliable source of information. And Catholic Answers tracts and just short little things, they are not complete scholarly things. They serve a purpose, but they cannot replace just reading the Fathers themselves. This is what countless converts have done, for example Newman. And once someone has studied the Fathers they will be equipped to see through many of the arguments of the polemicists.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is one of those monster posts..

[quote]St. Augustine's Belief in the Real Presence

The great Church Father makes many statements which have been traditionally seized upon as evidence of his adoption of either a purely symbolic or Calvinistic notion of the Lord's Supper. This consideration will be dealt with first, before consulting the primary materials:

I. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, tr. Patrick Lynch, ed. James C. Bastible, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 (orig. 1952 in German), pp.377-8:

The Eucharistic doctrine expounded by St. Augustine is interpreted in a purely spiritual way by most Protestant writers on the history of dogmas. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does not exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in expressing belief in the Real Presence . . .

When in the Fathers' writings, esp. those of St. Augustine, side by side with the clear attestations of the Real Presence, many obscure symbolically-sounding utterances are found also, the following points must be noted for the proper understanding of such passages: (1) The Early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10); (2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression, to which must be added the lack of a developed terminology to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ's body from its natural mode of existence once on earth; (3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as 'the sign of unity' (St. Augustine); this in no wise excludes the Real Presence.

II. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, v.4, ed. Angelo di Berardino, tr. Placid Solari, St. Augustine chapter (VI) written by Agostino Trape, Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1950, pp.449-50:

His thought [on the sacraments] has been widely studied but has not always been expounded in an unequivocal manner. Here as in other instances, it is necessary to keep in mind the various aspects of the dogma which he illustrates and defends. Thus........his insistence on the ecclesiological symbolism of the Eucharist does not obscure his explicit affirmations of the real presence (the bread is the Body of Christ and the wine is the Blood of Christ: Serm. 227; 272; In ps. 98, 9; 33, 1, 10) and of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (De civ. Dei 10, 19-20; Conf. 9, 12, 32; 13-36).

III. In a paper I recently wrote detailing in more technically theological fashion my odyssey to the Catholic Church (recalling the period in which I was voraciously studying people like Dollinger, Salmon and Kung, in order to refute Catholic claims to infallibility), I recounted my own use of the approach I am now critiquing:

I claimed that St. Augustine . . . adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist. I based this on his oft-stated notion of the sacrament as symbol or sign. I failed to realize, however, that I was arbitrarily creating a false, logically unnecessary dichotomy between the sign and the reality of the Eucharist, for St. Augustine - when all his remarks on the subject are taken into account - clearly accepted the Real Presence. The Eucharist- for Augustine, and objectively speaking - is both sign and reality. There simply is no contradiction.

A cursory glance at Scripture confirms this general principle. For instance, Jesus refers to the sign of Jonah, comparing the prophet Jonah's three days and nights in the belly of the fish to His own burial in the earth (Mt 12:38-40). In this case, both events, although described as signs, were quite real indeed. Jesus also uses the terminology of sign in connection with His Second Coming (Mt 24:30-31), which is believed by all Christians to be a literal event, and not symbolic only.

Now, on to St. Augustine's statements which very strongly support the opinion that He held to the Real Presence in the Eucharist:

IV. From Ott, Ibid.:

1) The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

2) Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

3) Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

4) Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.):

The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

Ott cites other references or beliefs of St. Augustine:

a) Interpretation of Jn 6:51b-58 as referring to the Eucharist {p.374}

b) Christ was both the sacrificing Priest and the sacrificial Gift in one Person {City of God, 10, 20; Ep. cf. 98, 9; on p.406}

c) The sacrifice of the Mass is that foretold by Malachi [1:10-11] {Tract. adv. Jud. 9, 13; on p,406}

d) The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice bringing about remission of sins and the conferring of supernatural gifts {De cura pro mortuis fier. 1, 3; 18, 22; Enchir. 110; on p.413}

V. William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, v.3, ed., tr. Jurgens, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979:

5) He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

6) Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

7) What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

8) Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {City of God, 10, 20; on p.99}

9) Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}

VI. Hugh Pope, St. Augustine of Hippo, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1961 (orig. 1937):

10) The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

11) The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}

12) Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

13) Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian's blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . {Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65}

14) He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort Bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

15) The very first heresy was formulated when men said: "this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?" {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}

16) Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. {Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p.66}

17) Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

18) The entire Church observes the tradition delivered to us by the Fathers, namely, that for those who have died in the fellowship of the Body and Blood of Christ, prayer should be offered when they are commemorated at the actual Sacrifice in its proper place, and that we should call to mind that for them, too, that Sacrifice is offered. {Sermo, 172, 2; 173, 1; De Cura pro mortuis, 6; De Anima et ejus Origine, 2, 21; on p.69}

19) We do pray for the other dead of whom commemoration is made. Nor are the souls of the faithful departed cut off from the Church . . . Were it so, we should not make commemoration of them at the altar of God when we receive the Body of Christ. {Sermo 159,1; cf. 284, 5; 285, 5; 297, 3; City of God, 20, 9, 2; cf. 21,24; 22, 8; on p.69}

20) It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

It is difficult to conceive of anyone denying that St. Augustine believed in the Real Presence (or the Sacrifice of the Mass) after perusing all of this compelling evidence. His other symbolic utterances have been sufficiently explained and are easily able to be synthesized with the above beliefs. St. Augustine is indeed an "insufficient witness" to Protestant belief in a symbolic, or "dynamic" Eucharist.

One of the (hostile) Protestant participants in the public online List on which I posted the above paper, responded on 12/8/96:

It is in his death on the cross (during is incarnation on earth, while taking "the form of a servant") that Christ was "both the priest, himself making the offering, and the oblation," not in the Eucharist, which was the "sacramental symbol" of the true sacrifice. Christ is not offered at every mass - it was "one sacrifice," the "supreme" and "true sacrifice."

St. Augustine's symbolic language can be synthesized with his "realistic" language, because realism can co-exist with symbol while retaining its realism, as I illustrated from the undeniable biblical examples of the "sign of Jonah" and the "sign of the coming of the Son of man."

The symbolic language can also (and indeed often does in Augustine) refer to other, more communal aspects of the Eucharist which complement (but are not contrary to) the "Real Presence" aspect of it. So there are at least two ways in which this can be explained as consistent with Catholic theology.

Even Jaroslav Pelikan, the source [my opponent] attempted to use against me (and one of my favorite Church historians), alludes to this option in the following somewhat ambiguous, paradoxical summary, on the same page as the citation he gave:

It is incorrect, therefore, to attribute to Augustine either a scholastic doctrine of transubstantiation or a Protestant doctrine of symbolism, for he taught neither - or both - and both were able to cite his authority.

{The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, p.305, emphasis added}

And this after Pelikan had just given several examples of rather obvious and extreme Eucharistic realism and literalism (many if not all included in my own proofs). The simple fact of the matter is that Augustine speaks in both ways. But we can harmonize them as complementary, not contradictory, because Catholics, like Augustine himself, tend to think in terms of "both/and" rather than the dichotomous "either/or" prevalent in Protestantism. Thus, when some Augustinian symbolic Eucharistic utterance is found, it is seized upon as "proof" that he thereby denied the Real Presence.

This is neither logically compelling, nor scholarly, since there are many of his statements which clearly indicate that he held to the literal, Real physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the priesthood, which makes no sense without sacrifice, and the efficacy of the Mass (as well as other prayers) for the aid of the dead in purgatory, etc.

In other words, Catholics have a cogent explanation for both types of language in Augustine, whereas I haven't seen anyone who denies that Augustine held to Real Presence, explain statements such as the twenty I compiled, as "symbolic" only. Accordingly, [my opponent] has totally ignored those, and with very good "reason," given his premises. On the other hand, I've openly dealt with his particular objection and presented my twenty citations as compelling evidence which utterly contradicts his interpretation of Augustine's Eucharistic views. Fair observers, therefore, can see who has straightforwardly faced the issue head on.

Apparently lacking a reasonable response (what else could I conclude from his silence?), instead [my opponent] offers the following mockery of my (and Catholic) views:

This is weak at best. Is it possible that he believed it was both a reality and a sign? Sure - anything's possible - would you like to buy some ocean-front propery in Arizona? But if it's so clear that he "never for a moment" doubted or denied the "Real Presence," it shouldn't be hard to argue from his writings, rather than arguing from silence or misquotes. In fact, the passage I quoted in full from the City of God mitigates against your claim, since Augustine differentiated between the "reality" of Christ's death on the cross and the "sacramental symbol" celebrated in the Church.

Any "differentiation" is in a complementary, not contradictory sense, for there are still the abundant citations in which he explicitly upholds the Real Presence. That being the case, he must have either contradicted himself, changed his mind, or else my "take" on the situation is correct. The communal ("symbolic" if you will) aspects of the Sacrifice of the Mass, to which Augustine refers, are totally consonant with Catholic theology, and are discussed, e.g., in the following passages fom the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994):

#1359, pp.342-3:

The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross,is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity.

#1360, p.343:

The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all 'thanksgiving.'

#1361, p.343:

The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him. {emphasis in original}

#1372, p.346:

St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more complete participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist:

This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head . . . Such is the sacrifice of Christians: "we who are many are one Body in Christ." The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered.

{City of God, 10,6: PL 41, 283; cf. Rom 12:5}

#2643, p.636:

The Eucharist contains and expresses all forms of prayer: it is 'the pure offering' of the whole Body of Christ to the glory of God's name [Note: cf. Mal 1:11] and, according to the traditions of East and West, it is the 'sacrifice of praise.' {emphasis in original}

Obviously, then, since this aspect of the Eucharist is presented openly and repeatedly in the Catechism (even quoting St. Augustine), it is not seen to be at all contradictory to the "Real Presence" essence of the Eucharist. And indeed it isn't, unless one creates unnecessary dichotomies in order to salvage one's own theological views.......

I continue to eagerly await an explanation of my twenty proofs of St. Augustine's espousal of the Real Presence. And if no one is able or willing to do so, I would say that intellectual honesty and historical objectivity compels Protestants to concede this point, which is illustrative of too-common Protestant misuse (conscious or not) of the Fathers. [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is another similar article (not as long)

[quote]St. Augustine's Belief in the Real Presence

By David Armstrong

One of the great theological champions quoted by both Protestants and Catholics to bolster their perspective positions on the meaning of many theological issues is St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. He is best known for two of his writings, his "Confessions" and "The City of God," and also for his devastating defense against the Pelagian heresy.

Because of this universal popularity, it is important to hear his personal testimony about the Real Presence* of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine.

This great Church Father made many statements which have been traditionally seized upon by Protestant theologians as evidence of his adoption of either a purely symbolic or Calvinistic notion of the Lord’s Supper. Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, commented on this use:

The Eucharistic doctrine expounded by St. Augustine is interpreted in a purely spiritual way by most Protestant writers on the history of dogmas. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does not exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in expressing belief in the Real Presence ...

When in the Fathers’ writings, esp. those of St. Augustine, side by side with the clear attestations of the Real Presence, many obscure symbolically-sounding utterances are found also, the following points must be noted for the proper understanding of such passages: (1) The Early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10); (2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression, to which must be added the lack of a developed terminology to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ’s body from its natural mode of existence once on earth; (3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as ‘the sign of unity’ (St. Augustine); this in no wise excludes the Real Presence. pp.377-8:

During my own journey to the Catholic Church, I was voraciously studying people like Dollinger, Salmon and Kung, in order to refute Catholic claims to infallibility. I remember my own use of this approach. I claimed that St. Augustine adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist. I based this on his oft-stated notion of the sacrament as symbol or sign. But I failed to realize, however, that I was arbitrarily creating a false, logically unnecessary dichotomy between the sign and the reality of the Eucharist, for St. Augustine. When all of his remarks on the subject are taken into account, it is very difficult to argue that he didn’t accept the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For Augustine, the Eucharist, objectively speaking, is both sign and reality. There simply is no contradiction.

A cursory glance at Scripture confirms this general principle. For instance, Jesus refers to the sign of Jonah, comparing the prophet Jonah’s three days and nights in the belly of the fish to His own burial in the earth (Mt 12:38-40). In this case, both events, although described as signs, were quite real indeed. Jesus also uses the terminology of sign in connection with His Second Coming (Mt 24:30-31), which is believed by all Christians to be a literal event, and not symbolic only.

Given this introduction, consider now the following statements made by St. Augustine which strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary

. . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . {Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

The very first heresy was formulated when men said: "this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?" {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}

Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. {Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p.66}

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is the last one, I promise.

[quote]Introduction
The Catholic Church teaches that when a priest repeats the words of Christ at the Last Supper over bread and wine that these become truly the Body and Blood of the Lord, even though the appearance of the bread and wine remain. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that the celebration of the Eucharist renews in an unbloody manner the Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, forming a unity with it. How can Catholics, who in every other way appear sane, hold these outrageous beliefs that utterly defy ordinary human sense? Moreover, how can Catholics maintain, in the light of Sacred Scripture, that these beliefs are the genuine teaching of Jesus as transmitted through the Apostles and held by Christians since the earliest days?

This article explores the scriptural basis of the Catholic claim that Jesus himself taught these things, as seen in the pages of Sacred Scripture. Further, this article examines the writings of early Christians to see what they believed and praticed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earliest Written Account of the Last Supper
1 Corinthians 11
18
For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
19
for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
20
When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
21
For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22
What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24
and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
31
But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
32
But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33
So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--
34
if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
cf. Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-23

This is the first written account of the Last Supper, being recorded in the year 57. Note particularly verses 27, 29; they indicate that the body of the Lord is truly present. Also note that verse 25 records our Lord's commandment to perpetuate the Eucharist, hence the need for the sacramental priesthood.

In verse 27, St. Paul points out that one commits a serious sin when he receives our Lord in the Eucharist while in a state of serious sin. This is why the Church teaches that we should confess any serious sins before receiving the Eucharist.

About this account of the Last Supper, the St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catecheses (c. 350 A.D.) says

Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood?

Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.

Some Christians take umbrage at the Catholic Church's use of transubstantiation to describe the mystery of the Real Presence. They claim that this fancy word along with, what is to them, the fancy (descriptive) explanation, needlessly complicate the teaching of the Gospel with philosophy. What they are missing is that philosophy just helps us to refine our common-sense notions, and so to improve our understanding and expression of the Truth.

The truth is that this big word transubstantiation is a high fence to protect what has always been the Church's teaching on the Eucharist: that when Christ said 'This is my body,' he meant is in the usual way that we mean is, and that just because our senses tell us that this is still bread, doesn't detract from the words of Christ who is God, but rather from the evidence of our senses.

For comparison, when we say that a tree is a tree, we mean that the substance of this object is tree. If I chop down the tree and build a chair. I now say, 'This is a chair'-- the substance of the tree has become chair. The chair is a chair no matter what my eyes or sense of touch tell me: the chair is still a chair when in the dark when we can't see it or when it is covered by a stiff, opaque cloth.

The importance of the clarity of the Church's teaching on the Real Presence as expressed by the term transubstantiation became evident in the sixteenth century when the Reformers rejected it. Luther, who, unlike Calvin and his disciples, was not utterly blind to the clear meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture (cf. John 6 below), tried to preserve belief in the Real Presence while distancing himself from the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of transubstantiation. So he taught what we call consubstantiation: that the body and blood of Christ are present along with the bread and the wine.

The problem with this explanation is that it postulates an entirely new manner of being and says that Christ had to be using is in a way much different from the way we normally use the word, so that when he said, 'This is my body,' he really meant, 'This is my body (along with the bread which is still here too).' The real obscenity of this explanation is that Luther then has the temerity to complain about Catholics complicating the Gospel!

And if Luther twisted words in knots to avoid transubstantiation, much more did the other Reformers in entirely rejecting the Real Presence as clearly taught by Christ in the following passage of Sacred Scripture.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus Foretells the Insitution and Meaning of the Eucharist
John 6
25
When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?"
26
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
27
Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."
28
Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
29
Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
30
So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform?
31
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
32
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world."
34
They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always."
35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
36
But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
37
All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
39
and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
40
For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
41
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."
42
They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
43
Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.
44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45
It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
46
Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50
This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58
This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
59
This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um.
60
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
61
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62
Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
66
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67
Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69
and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
70
Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"
71
He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
Verses 26 and 63 frame the whole discourse with the crowd. The reason they do not believe the great teaching he is about to reveal is that their vision is too earthly: ``Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.'' (Philippians 3:18,19). In the words of St. Paul:

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. (Romans 8:5)
The crowd cannot see the divinity of Jesus because they are impure and seek their own gratification: ``Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.'' (Matthew 5:8). In verse 40, he tells us that we must see the Son of man and have faith in him in order to gain eternal life. How is it that we modern-day disciples can see Jesus? Only through a pure act of faith: 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe' (Jn 20:29).

In verses 45-46, he as much as says that his authority is divine, as if to remind the crowd that though the teaching is difficult, the authority of the one who reveals it admits of no doubt. In verse 47 he says solemnly ``he who believes has eternal life''. But believes what? What is the content of this belief? It can only be the teaching that follows in verses 48-51: ``I am the bread of life.... if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.''

Notice that the crowds clearly understand him to say that to live they must eat his flesh (v. 52), and, although they understand him in a carnal way (not seeing that his flesh will be veiled under the appearance of bread and wine), they grasp the basic truth of his words. The proof is that he does not try to correct them as if they had misunderstood, but rather reiterates and amplifies what they have understood from his saying in verse 51. Notice with what solemnity (``Truly, truly...'') and how many times he reaffirms this teaching (vv. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58). Each of these verses is a categorical affirmation of the crowd's understanding of his words. There is no indication that Jesus is speaking figuratively here; we must humbly accept the words of our Lord, even though if it require a great leap of faith. We must not allow our predispositions or traditions or even the purely empirical knowledge of our own senses to restrict our full recognition of the truth given from the mouth of God made Man: ``Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'' (John 20:29) We must humbly ask God for the faith to believe in this truth beyond all expectation, tradition and sense. ``Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.'' (Mark 10:16)

Some interpret verse 63 to mean that the flesh about which Jesus has just been speaking does not contribute to salvation. The problem with this interpretation is that it denies the role of the Incarnation in our salvation: if Jesus' flesh is not beneficial to our salvation, why did he become a man and sacrifice himself? The correct interpretation is, as we have already noted, that `flesh' refers to the senses and the mind enslaved to the senses. Jesus is saying, `Don't judge by your senses; judge by the Spirit: have faith in me!' Besides, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out, Jesus gives us in the Holy Eucharist not just his body, but also his blood, soul, and divinity; Jesus died only once and these can never be separated from his body again.

Significantly, St. John has told us that the events of the previous episode take place just under a year before Jesus institutes the Sacrament of his Love at the Last Supper: "Now, the Passover, the Feast of the Jews, was at hand." (verse 4, not shown above). The present episode occurs on the Passover, a year before Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Verse 66 tells us that many of Jesus' disciples (not just an stray crowd, but his disciples) withdrew from following him because they understood his words literally and took offense. If Jesus had intended his words symbolically, he would have been morally obliged to clarify them for his misunderstanding disciples. But he does not do so.

Finally, notice that this is the first time St. John mentions that Judas is going to betray Jesus (v. 71), that it immediately follows many of Jesus's disciples falling away from him due to the apparent enormity of the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (v. 60). In verse 64, St. John makes the connection between betrayal of Jesus and unbelief in what he has just taught. Here we learn that it was Judas' failure to believe the Lord in preference to sense evidence that started him on the road to perdition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Eucharist as a Sacrifice
1 Corinthians 10
14
Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
15
I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.
16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17
Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18
Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
19
What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20
No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
Note that some translations have ``communion'' in place of ``participation'' in verse 16. Notice also (v. 17) that the Eucharist is the bond that joins Christians as well as being a symbol of their unity. This agrees with the description of the first Christians in Acts 2:42, which implies that the eucharist was a cause of their unity: ``And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.''
Notice how St. Paul draws a parallel pagan sacrifices and the Eucharist; the former is offered to demons, the latter to God: ``By eating the meat of animals offered to Yahweh, Jews participated in the sacrifice and worship in his honour; and by receiving the body and blood of the Lord, Christians unite themselves to Christ; similarly, those who take part in idolatrous banquets are associating themselves not with false gods--which have no existence-- but with demons.'' (Navarre Bible, commentary on vv. 14-22) Thus, the Eucharist is a sacrifice to God.

This teaching of St. Paul also brings out the full meaning of chapter seven of the Letter to the Hebrews, in which Christ is called ``a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek'' (cf. Psalm 110:4). Melchizedek offered bread and wine as his sacrifice to God (Genesis 14:17-20), a sacrifice which foreshadowed Jesus' own sacrifice. For Christians, the Holy Eucharist is the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary. It is not a new sacrifice, but a continuation of our Lord's self-immolation, which transcends all time and place. In communion, a Christian receives our Lord and also offers himself to the Lord: it is an exchange of persons. To the early Christians this exchange must have been painfully obvious, since their participation in the Eucharistic feast implied their willingness to confess Christ even to death.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Did the Earlist Christians Believe?
Why should we care what Christians in earlier ages believed? For one, the unity of the Christ's Church extends not only throughout the world, but throughout time. These truths have been handed down to us in Scripture, but also in the other writings of the first Christians, some of whom knew the Apostles personally. If these first Christians had incorrect doctrine, then they must have learned it wrong from the Apostles. Since our faith comes to us from the Apostles, Sacred Scripture can only be as correct as they are.

Let us examine what the earliest Christians writers have said about the real presence.

circa 110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7,3
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.
Letter to the Philadephians 3,3 - 4
Do not err, my brethren,: if anyone follow a schismatic he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care then to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7
From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.
circa 150 A.D.: St. Justin Martyr,

First Apology, 66
St. Justin is talking about the Mass, and he has described the consecration and communion. Then he says

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins annd for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor as common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our flesh and blood is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.
Second Apology, 41

"And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing(4) principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before,(5) about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.'(6) [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first(7) of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.
circa 165 A.D.: St. Irenaeus of Lyons
Adversus Haereses Book 4, ch. 18, s. 5
Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned.(4) But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.(5) For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread,(6) but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Adversus Haereses Book 5, ch. 2, ss. 2-3
2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body.(1) For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins."(2) And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills(3)). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.(4)

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,(5) from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones."(6) He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;(7) but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,--that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,(8) because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness,(9) in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality,(10) that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?

circa 350 A.D.: St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Catecheses, Lecture 22, ss. 1,3-6,9
(cf. Lecture 19, s. 7; Lecture 23, ss. 20-23)
On the night he was betrayed out Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: ``Take, eat: this is my body.'' He took the cup, gave thanks and said: ``Take, drink: this is my blood.'' Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood?

Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us udner the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.

Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understandoing his words ina spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.

Under the old dispensation there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.

Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.

You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man's heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spriritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.

May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that by contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

circa 390 A.D.: St. John Chrysostrom,
Homily 46 (commenting on John 6)
Therefore, in order that we may become of His Body, not in desire only, but also in very fact, let us become commingled with that Body. This, in truth, takes place by means of the food which He has given us as a gift, because He desire to prove the love which He has for us. It is for this reason that He shared Himself with us and has brought His Body down to our level, namely, that we might be one with Him as the body is joined with the head. This, in truth is characteristic of those who greatly love. Job, indeed, was implying this when he said of his servants--by whom he was loved with such an excess of love--that they desired to cleave to his flesh. In giving expression to the great love which they possessed, they said: `Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled?' Moreover, Christ has done even this to spur us on to even greater love. And to show the love He has for us He has made it possible for those who desire, not merely to look upon Him, but even to touch Him and to consume Him and to fix their teeth in His Flesh and to be commingled with Him; in short, to fulfill all their love. Let us, then, come back from that table like lions breathing out fire, thus becoming terrifying to the Devil, and remaining mindful of our Head and of the love which He has shown for us.
A more extensive list of early Christian writings on this topic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
Belief in the Real Presence is a universal and perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, that is to say, she has taught it everywhere and always, from her birth from the pierce side of our Lord down to the present day. No Christian denied it in the first millennium. Only in the eleventh century did anyone at all deny it. The Church immediately responded by reaffirming the perennial teaching by defending what she had received from the Lord. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation fifteen centuries after Christ's death that rejection of the Real Presence gained a following of any significance. The Holy Spirit has protected the majority of the world's believers (Catholics and Orthodox) from error in this matter. (It is also worthwhile noting that not all Protestants deny the Real Presence.) [/quote]

[ironmonk]

Dairy,

Are we speaking the same language?

Numerous times have links been posted to Augustine's writings. Yet, you question some of the VERY basics? You claim you have studied, but it sure doesn't look like it.

Go to this page: [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url]

Scroll down to this and go to each of the links, read, and learn:

Augustine of Hippo [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
- Confessions
- Letters
- City of God
- Christian Doctrine
- On the Holy Trinity
- The Enchiridion
- On the Catechising of the Uninstructed
- On Faith and the Creed
- Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen
- On the Profit of Believing
- On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens
- On Continence
- On the Good of Marriage
- On Holy Virginity
- On the Good of Widowhood
- On Lying
- To Consentius: Against Lying
- On the Work of Monks
- On Patience
- On Care to be Had For the Dead
- On the Morals of the Catholic Church
- On the Morals of the Manichaeans
- On Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans
- Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean
- Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental
- Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
- Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichaeans
- On Baptism, Against the Donatists
- Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta
- The Correction of the Donatists
- Merits and Remission of Sin, and Infant Baptism
- On the Spirit and the Letter
- On Nature and Grace
- On Man's Perfection in Righteousness
- On the Proceedings of Pelagius
- On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin
- On Marriage and Concupiscence
- On the Soul and its Origin
- Against Two Letters of the Pelagians
- On Grace and Free Will
- On Rebuke and Grace
- The Predestination of the Saints/Gift of Perseverance
- Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount
- The Harmony of the Gospels
- Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament
- Tractates on the Gospel of John
- Homilies on the First Epistle of John
- Soliloquies
- The Enarrations, or Expositions, on the Psalms




St. Augustine was a Catholic Bishop LOYAL to the Pope. He was on the council of Hippo that helped determine the Canon of the NT.

Ignorance is curable... you just have to read.

God Bless.
ironmonk

[Laudate_Dominum]

Read this one ironmonk: "On Rebuke and Grace". hehe, j/k

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227[/quote]

I can't find any of the quotes that are in you favour. Can someone find a link with this in context? Or Sermon 272I can't find it. Or the quotes:

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

thanx


As far as Augustine's belief in the CC teaching of the last supper, I am still searching. But as for his belief in the papacy, evidience in its favour is very weak. I'd definitly like more on that.

Edited March 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 10 2004, 11:45 AM'] As far as Augustine's belief in the CC teaching of the last supper, I am still searching. But as for his belief in the papacy, evidience in its favour is very weak. I'd definitly like more on that. [/quote]
The links I provided on the Papacy are good. I don't know if you've looked at them yet, but they are fly.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 10 2004, 11:45 AM'] Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}
[/quote]
This is in a book I have. Here it is with more context:

"He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh to us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it [nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit] ... and we sin by not adoring." - Ennar. In Ps. 98, 9

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 10 2004, 11:45 AM'] Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}
[/quote]
This one is also in one of my books:

"And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: 'This is my Body.' Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands." - Ennar. In Ps. 33, 1, 10

[Laudate_Dominum]

"Who is the Bread of heaven except Christ? But in order that man might eat the bread of angels, the Lord of the angels became a man. If this had not happened, we would not have his Flesh: if we did not have his Flesh, we would not eat the Bread of the altar." - Sermon 130

I couldn't find semon 227.

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is an Augustine quote from one of my books that I like a lot.

"Therefore Christ Our Lord, who by suffering offered for us that which, by being born, he had received from us, and who has been made High Priest forever, has given to us the rite [latin: ordinem] of sacrificing that which you see, namely, his Body and Blood. Struck by the spear, his Body gave forth water and Blood, by which he took away our sins. Mindful of this grace, approach and share in this altar, working out your salvation in fear and trembling because it is God who works in you. Recognize in the Bread that which hung on the Cross; recognize in the chalice what flowed from his side... Therefore take and eat the Body of Christ, all of you who have already been made members of Christ in the Body of Christ. Take and drink the Blood of Christ... Just as this is changed into you when you eat and drink, so you will be turned into the Body of Christ when you live obediently and worthily." - Sermon Denis 3

Edited March 10, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[dairygirl4u2c]

....

Edited March 10, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c