"You
know very well what price was paid for you, you know very well what you are
approaching, what you about to eat, what you are about to drink, or rather Whom
you are about to eat, Whom you are about to drink."
[St.
Augustine, Sermon 9:14, Augustine,
Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. Sermons
(1-19) on the Old Testament. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1990.]
III. Sermon
227: Preached on the Holy Day of Easter to the Infantes, on the Sacraments
A. Preface.
The
gentleman who goes by the title of TurretinFan asserts on his blog, Thoughts of Francis Turretin, that Saint
Augustine of Hippo did not believe in the dogma the Church calls
“Transubstantiation.” To support his
assertion, he offers his commentary on three Augustinian texts, Sermon 227, Sermon 272, and Letter 36.
At the outset, TurretinFan makes no effort to reference to Catholic
teaching on Transubstantiation for his readers to use to test his
assertion. He cites to no dogmatic
pronouncements, encyclicals, or other magisterial documents to provide a means
to compare how Saint Augustine’s teaching purportedly varies from present-day
Catholic teaching. For that matter, he
makes no effort to cite to any of his own denominational writings to show how
Saint Augustine’s beliefs are more in line with Presbyterian Eucharistic teaching
or to support his additional claim that Eucharistic “bare symbolists” employ
the same language as Saint Augustine to
describe the sacrament. Sadly, this
failure of scholarship renders TurretinFan’s commentary a mere polemical
endeavor. I shall strive to give a
better account of myself.
TurretinFan’s
polemics notwithstanding, I contend there is nothing in any of these three
texts he chose that suggest Saint Augustine, a Catholic saint, a doctor of the
Church, and s member of its teaching Magisterium itself, did not believe that
when the priest consecrates bread and wine during the sacrifice of the Mass
their entire substance becomes the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. Recapping my discussion of Letter 36, I presented the evidence that
Saint Augustine’s held that the sacrifices prescribed in the Old Testament
prefigured the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Our Lord on the cross and that the
Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass is a “re-presentation” of that self-same
sacrifice on that cross thereby making it real and present in our lives two
thousand years later. In my critique of
TurretinFan’s commentary on Sermon 272, I showed that Saint Augustine’s
mystagogic preaching is entirely consistent with the teaching of the
present-day Catholic Church on the dogma of the Real Presence. In fact, as I demonstrated from official
doctrinal texts of the Church, Saint Augustine’s teaching contained in Sermon 272 forms an important part of
the Eucharistic theology of today’s Catholic Church. See e.g., Section 1396 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
While Sermon 272 and Letter 36 provide important insights into Saint Augustine’s
Eucharistic theology, they do not provide direct evidence on the question of
whether he believed in the dogma of Transubstantiation. However, I would submit that Sermon 227 does offer direct evidence
bearing on the question of whether Saint Augustine believed in the dogma of
Transubstantiation. On this occasion, I
intend to show Saint Augustine’s Eucharistic theology as contained in Sermon 227 and his other writings do
demonstrate he believed that when bread and wine are consecrated at Mass they
become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is essence of
Transubstantiation.
B. The Dogma of Transubstantiation.
To help the
reader decide the question of whether Saint Augustine held a belief in
Transubstantiation, I offer the following magisterial teaching setting forth
what the Catholic Church officially holds in regards to the dogma of Transubstantiation. After all, how can one hope to make a
comparison unless they have something to compare with? I also beg the reader’s forgiveness in
offering such lengthy selections from the texts set out below, but I thought it
important for any non-Catholic readers to better understand what the Church
teaches and holds as opposed to opinions, distortions and speculations of those
who malign this dogma.
While it is
difficult for some to believe in the dogma of Transubstantiation, its
definition is not difficult to understand.
Here is how the dogma was first defined in Canon 1 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:
There is one Universal Church of the
faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and
sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the
sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being
changed (transsubstantiatio) by
divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the
mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this
sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in
accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the
Apostles and their successors.
(Emphasis Added.)
CHAPTER IV.
Transubstantiation.
But since Christ our Redeemer declared that
to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has,
therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy
council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a
change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance
of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and
appropriately calls transubstantiation.
Trent teaches:
SYMBOLISM INADEQUATE TO EXPRESS
REAL PRESENCE
44. While Eucharistic symbolism is well
suited to helping us understand the effect that is proper to this Sacrament—the
unity of the Mystical Body—still it does not indicate or explain what it is
that makes this Sacrament different from all the others. For the constant
teaching that the Catholic Church has passed on to her catechumens, the
understanding of the Christian people, the doctrine defined by the Council of
Trent, the very words that Christ used when He instituted the Most Holy
Eucharist, all require us to profess 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 again." To
these words of St. Ignatius, we may well add those which Theodore of
Mopsuestia, who is a faithful witness to the faith of the Church on this point,
addressed to the people: "The Lord did not say: This is symbol of my body,
and this is a symbol of my blood, but rather: This is my body and my blood. He
teaches us not to look to the nature of what lies before us and is perceived by
the senses, because the giving of thanks and the words spoken over it have
changed it into flesh and blood."
45. The Council of Trent, basing itself on
this faith of the Church, "openly and sincerely professes that after the
consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is
really, truly and substantially contained in the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist under the outward appearances of sensible things." And so Our
Savior is present in His humanity not only in His natural manner of existence
at the right hand of the Father, but also at the same time in the sacrament of
the Eucharist "in a manner of existing that we can hardly express in words
but that our minds, illumined by faith, can come to see as possible to God and
that we must most firmly believe."
CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which
goes
beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the
greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of
the teaching and praying Church. Her
voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in
which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the
wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic
Church fittingly and properly calls Transubstantiation. As a result of Transubstantiation, the
species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new
finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of
something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new
signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new
"reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies
beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something
completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in
reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been
changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the
wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in
His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the
manner in which bodies are in a place. (Emphasis added.)
Sacrifice of Calvary
24.
We believe that the Mass, celebrated
by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received
through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and
the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered
sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine
consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His
blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine
consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ
enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of
the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true,
real and substantial presence.
Transubstantiation
25.
Christ
cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of
the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality
itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine
which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called
by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks
some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic
faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the
bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the
adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before
us under the sacramental species of bread and wine, as the Lord willed it, in
order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His
Mystical Body.
26.
The unique and indivisible existence
of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by
the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this
existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which
is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our
very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the
Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made
present before us. (Emphasis Added)
15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, crowned
by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in
the words of Paul VI – “is called ‘real’ not as a way of excluding all other
types of presence as if they were ‘not real’, but because it is a presence in
the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is
wholly and entirely present”. This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching
of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the
change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of
Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of
his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this
change transubstantiation”. Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and
can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the
Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of
Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the
Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you
of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.
Adoro te
devote, latens Deitas, we shall
continue to sing with the Angelic Doctor. Before this mystery of love, human
reason fully experiences its limitations. One understands how, down the
centuries, this truth has stimulated theology to strive to understand it ever
more deeply.
These are praiseworthy efforts, which are all
the more helpful and insightful to the extent that they are able to join
critical thinking to the “living faith” of the Church, as grasped especially by
the Magisterium's “sure charism of truth” and the “intimate sense of spiritual
realities” which is attained above all by the saints. There remains the
boundary indicated by Paul VI: “Every
theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in
order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in
objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to
exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord
Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of
bread and wine”. (Emphasis Added).
Pope
Emeritus Benedict XVI also wrote on the dogma of Transubstantiation in his
Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis (2007):
The Holy Spirit and the Eucharist
Jesus and the Holy Spirit
12.
With his word and with the elements
of bread and wine, the Lord himself has given us the essentials of this new
worship. The Church, his Bride, is called to celebrate the Eucharistic banquet
daily in his memory. She thus makes the redeeming sacrifice of her Bridegroom a
part of human history and makes it sacramentally present in every culture. This
great mystery is celebrated in the liturgical forms which the Church, guided by
the Holy Spirit, develops in time and space.
We need a renewed awareness of the decisive role played by the Holy
Spirit in the evolution of the liturgical form and the deepening understanding
of the sacred mysteries. The Paraclete, Christ's first gift to those who
believe, already at work in Creation
(cf. Gen 1:2), is fully present throughout the life of the incarnate Word:
Jesus Christ is conceived by the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit
(cf. Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35); at the beginning of his public mission, on the banks of
the Jordan, he sees the Spirit descend upon him in the form of a dove (cf. Mt
3:16 and parallels); he acts, speaks and rejoices in the Spirit (cf. Lk 10:21),
and he can offer himself in the Spirit (cf. Heb 9:14). In the so-called
"farewell discourse" reported by John, Jesus clearly relates the gift
of his life in the paschal mystery to the gift of the Spirit to his own (cf. Jn
16:7). Once risen, bearing in his flesh the signs of the passion, he can pour
out the Spirit upon them (cf. Jn 20:22), making them sharers in his own mission
(cf. Jn 20:21). The Spirit would then teach the disciples all things and bring
to their remembrance all that Christ had said (cf. Jn 14:26), since it falls to
him, as the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 15:26), to guide the disciples into all
truth (cf. Jn 16:13). In the account in Acts, the Spirit descends on the
Apostles gathered in prayer with Mary on the day of Pentecost (cf. 2:1-4) and
stirs them to undertake the mission of proclaiming the Good News to all
peoples. Thus it is through the working of the Spirit that Christ himself
continues to be present and active in his Church, starting with her vital center
which is the Eucharist.
The
Holy Spirit and the Eucharistic celebration
13.
Against this backdrop we can
understand the decisive role played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic
celebration, particularly with regard to transubstantiation. An awareness of
this is clearly evident in the Fathers of the Church. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem,
in his Catecheses, states that we "call upon God in his mercy to send his
Holy Spirit upon the offerings before us, to transform the bread into the body
of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ. Whatever the Holy Spirit
touches is sanctified and completely transformed". Saint John Chrysostom too notes that the
priest invokes the Holy Spirit when he celebrates the sacrifice: like Elijah,
the minister calls down the Holy Spirit so that "as grace comes down upon
the victim, the souls of all are thereby inflamed”. The spiritual life of the
faithful can benefit greatly from a better appreciation of the richness of the
anaphora: along with the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper, it contains
the epiclesis, the petition to the Father to send down the gift of the Spirit
so that the bread and the wine will become the body and blood of Jesus Christ
and that "the community as a whole will become ever more the body of
Christ”. The Spirit invoked by the celebrant upon the gifts of bread and wine
placed on the altar is the same Spirit who gathers the faithful "into one
body" and makes of them a spiritual offering pleasing to the Father.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums up what Catholics must believe about
the dogma of Transubstantiation succinctly:
1375
It is by the conversion of the bread
and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this
sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the
efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring
about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not
man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but
he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ,
pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body,
he says. This word transforms the things offered.
And
St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced
that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated.
The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing
nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from
nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not
before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to
change their nature.
1376.
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring:
"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was
offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the
Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a
change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of
Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of
his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly
called Transubstantiation."
(Emphasis
added. Footnotes omitted)
Avery Cardinal Dulles addresses some of the
difficulties in faith that people voice about the Church’s teaching on the Real
Presence and Transubstantiation:
In saying
first of all that Christ is truly contained under the Eucharistic species, the
Council [of Trent] repudiated the view that the sacrament is a mere sign or
figure pointing away from itself to a body that is absent, perhaps somewhere in
the heavens.
...
Secondly,
the presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective.
Ontological, because it takes place in the order of being; objective, because
it does not depend on the thoughts or feelings of the minister or the
communicants. The body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament by
reason of the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, which are
attached to the proper performance of the rite by a duly ordained minister. In
so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that
brings about Christ's presence in the sacrament. According to Catholic
teaching, faith does not make Christ present, but gratefully acknowledges that
presence and allows Holy Communion to bear fruit in holiness. To receive the
sacrament without faith is unprofitable, even sinful, but the lack of faith
does not render the presence unreal.
Thirdly,
Trent tells us that Christ's presence in the sacrament is substantial. The word
"substance" as here used is not a technical philosophical term, such
as might be found in the philosophy of Aristotle. It was used in the early
Middle Ages long before the works of Aristotle were current.
"Substance" in common-sense usage denotes the basic reality of the
thing, i.e., what it is in itself. Derived from the Latin root
"sub-stare", it means what stands under the appearances, which can
shift from one moment to the next while leaving the subject intact.
...
Substance,
meaning what a thing is in itself, may be contrasted with function, which has
reference to action. Christ is present by His dynamic power and action in all
the sacraments, but in the Eucharist His presence is, in addition, substantial.
For this reason, the Eucharist may be adored. It is the greatest of all
sacraments. After the consecration the bread and wine have become, in a
mysterious way, Christ Himself.
...
The Council
of Trent spoke also of the process by which this presence of Christ comes
about. It stated that the bread and wine are changed; they cease to be what
they were and become what they were not. The whole substance of the bread and
wine becomes the substance of the body and blood of Christ and, because Christ
cannot be divided, they become also His soul and His divinity. (DS 1640, 1642)
The whole Christ is made present under each of the two forms.
The change
that occurs in the consecration at Mass is sui
generis. It does not fit into the categories of Aristotle, who believed
that every substantial change involved a change in the appearances or what he
called accidents. When I eat an apple, it loses its perceptible qualities as
well as its substance as an apple. It becomes part of me. But in the
consecration of bread and wine at Mass, the outward appearances remain
unchanged. The Church has coined the term "transubstantiation" to
designate the process by which the whole substance, and only the substance, is
changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood. A special word is needed
to designate a process that is unique and unparalleled.
In teaching
that the species are unchanged, the Church indicates that the physical and
chemical properties remain those of bread and wine. Not only do they look and
weigh the same; they retain the same nutritive value that they had before the
consecration. It would be futile to try to prove or disprove the real presence
by physical experiments, because the presence of Christ is spiritual or
sacramental, not physical in the sense of measurable.
...
Saint Thomas
Aquinas [...] avoids speaking of the Eucharist as a special body (sacramental
or mystical), but on the other hand he asserts that the risen and glorified
body of Christ has a different existence in heaven and in the sacrament. He
contrasts Christ's existence in Himself and His existence under the sacrament
as two different states or modes of being. According to His natural mode of
existence Christ is in heaven, and according to His Eucharistic mode of
existence, He is in the sacrament. The
body of Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but not in the way bodies are
in place. Its parts and dimensions cannot be measured against other bodies. His
circumference is not that of the host.
In
opposition to the naïve realists, therefore, Saint Thomas holds that when we
look at the host we do not see the shape and colors that properly belong to the
body of Christ, but those of the host itself.
See, Dulles,
Avery. Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Real, True and Substantial.
Adoremus Bulletin, on-line edition (April 2005).
In the above article, Cardinal Dulles answers
many of the common objections made against Transubstantiation. He makes it clear that the Catholic Church’s
understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a result of
Transubstantiation rejects the Capharnaite error that the Jesus becomes
quantitatively present in the Eucharistic elements in a carnal or in a
cannibalistic manner (as does Saint Augustine in his Tractates on the Gospel of John 26:18). He
also makes it clear that the Church’s position is that the whole Jesus is
present in the Eucharist–a view that runs counter to the faux-Monophysitic
arguments sometimes raised against Transubstantiation by certain anti-Catholic
polemicists.
C. Background
and Context.
Armed with the above representative
statements of what "modern Rome" holds in regards to the dogma of
Transubstantiation, we shall move on to examine the context and milieu in which
Sermon 227 itself was given.
First, it is important to remember that Sermon 227 was preached at an Easter-day
Mass. Specifically, the sermon was given
at a day-time Mass on Easter Sunday rather than at the Vigil Mass the night
before. The former
catechumens/competentes, now infantes, are full Christians who have received
all three of the sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation
and the Eucharist during the Easter Vigil Mass.
This is only the second time that the infantes had been allowed to be
present at a full Mass rather than being ushered out of church before the
Universal Prayer also called the Prayers of the People.
In a practice left over the time of the early
Church when the faithful were persecuted, the deeper and more important
mysteries of the Faith were kept in reserve until the converts were fully
initiated into the Church. The practice
was retained because it was determined to be desirable to bring learners slowly
and by degrees to a full knowledge of the Faith as converts could not
profitably assimilate the whole Catholic religion at once. Because of the differences between the
Catholic faith and the theology of the many pagan religions which were still
prolific at this time, it was important for the catechumens to learn the great
truth of the unity of God, and then proceed from there. The doctrines to which the reserve was more
especially applied concerned those of the Holy Trinity and the Sacrament of the
Holy Eucharist. The words of the Creed and the Lord's Prayer were also withheld
from those who were not fully instructed.
While catechumens were taught the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer before
they were baptized (there are wonderful Augustinian sermons on them), the
catechumens were not allowed to even speak those prayers aloud until after they
received the sacraments of initiation.
The liturgy was divided into parts. The Mass
of Catechumens, the portion of the liturgy to which the catechumens, learners
and neophytes were admitted, consisted of prayers, readings from Holy Scripture, and at times
stories from the lives of martyrs of the early Church, as well as one or more sermons. Thereafter, the uninitiated were bidden to
depart escorted by minor clergy called porters.
When they had left, the more solemn Mass of the Faithful would
begin. A large part of Sermon 227 is an explanation of the
meaning of the liturgical rites contained in the Mass of the Faithful about
which the newly initiated infantes would have had very little familiarity.
Now it should be acknowledged that scholars
dispute over to what extent that the reserve was practiced in the time of Saint
Augustine, but there is no doubt that it was practiced to some degree as shown
by this passage from Saint Augustine:
Give good
heed, my beloved, and understand. If we say to a catechumen, Do you believe in
Christ, he answers, I believe, and signs himself; already he bears the cross of
Christ on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord. Behold, he
has believed in His name. Let us ask him, Do you eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink the blood of the Son of man? He knows not what we say, because
Jesus has not trusted Himself to him. (Tractates on John 11:3)
Second, it must be remembered that Saint
Augustine himself presided over the liturgy as an ordained bishop of the
Catholic Church. Sermon 227 is example of Saint Augustine exercising his Episcopal
office to instruct his flock on the importance of the sacrament of the
Eucharist, its nature, its purpose and its effect. The liturgical rites and language described
in Sermon 227 sixteen hundred years
ago are virtually identical to the rites and language used in the Mass of
Catholic Church today.
Third, Saint Augustine is providing such
instruction within the milieu of the celebration of the sacrifice of the
Mass. Saint Augustine is not only a
preacher, but is the celebrant of the Mass.
The importance of this fact cannot be overstated because in Saint
Augustine’s world as well in today’s “modern Rome” (as seen from the above
explanatory statements on the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation) if there
is no priest or bishop acting in persona
Christi (in the person of Christ) consecrating the elements of bread and
wine at Mass, there is no Eucharist. And
if there is no consecration, there is no Transubstantiation as shown from the
magisterial statements I referenced above.
Now some might wish to argue this point as
Saint Augustine was the first of the early fathers to discuss the view of a
universal priesthood of believers. But
while Saint Augustine, as well as the Catholic Church since Vatican II, place a
great deal of emphasis on the participation of the laity in Christ’s three-fold
office of priest, prophet and king, there is also no doubt that Saint Augustine
also believed in a sacramental, sacerdotal priesthood as well:
But if I
have by experience learned what is necessary for a man who ministers to a people in the divine sacraments and word,
only to find myself prevented from now obtaining what I have learned that I do
not possess, do you bid me perish, father Valerius?
[Emphasis
Added. N. B.~ This letter was from Saint
Augustine to his bishop, Valerius, requesting to take a leave of absence (otium) so he could study the Scriptures
to become a better priest.]
But our
martyrs are not our gods; for we know that the martyrs and we have both but one
God, and that the same. Nor yet are the miracles which they maintain to have
been done by means of their temples at all comparable to those which are done
by the tombs of our martyrs. If they seem similar, their gods have been
defeated by our martyrs as Pharaoh's magi were by Moses. In reality, the demons
wrought these marvels with the same impure pride with which they aspired to be
the gods of the nations; but the martyrs do these wonders, or rather God does
them while they pray and assist, in order that an impulse may be given to the
faith by which we believe that they are not our gods, but have, together with
ourselves, one God. In fine, they built temples to these gods of theirs, and
set up altars, and ordained priests, and appointed sacrifices; but to our
martyrs we build, not temples as if they were gods, but monuments as to dead
men whose spirits live with God. Neither do we erect altars at these monuments
that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of
ourselves; and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place and rank as
men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, but they are not invoked
by the sacrificing priest. For it is to
God, not to them, he sacrifices, though he sacrifices at their monument; for he
is God's priest, not theirs. The sacrifice itself, too, is the body of Christ,
which is not offered to them, because they themselves are this body. Which
then can more readily be believed to work miracles? They who wish themselves to
be reckoned gods by those on whom they work miracles, or those whose sole
object in working any miracle is to induce faith in God, and in Christ also as
God? They who wished to turn even their crimes into sacred rites, or those who
are unwilling that even their own praises be consecrated, and seek that
everything for which they are justly praised be ascribed to the glory of Him in
whom they are praised?
(Emphasis
Added.)
I would also note that Saint Augustine’s
mentor, Saint Ambrose, said this identifying who consecrates the Eucharist:
You may
perhaps say: 'My bread is ordinary.' But that bread is bread before the words
of the Sacraments; when the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add
this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ. By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain
words, but whose words? Those of the
Lord Jesus. Like all the rest of the
things said beforehand , they are said by the pries; praises are referred to
God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other
persons, but when the time comes for the
confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words,
but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is the word of Christ that confects this
Sacrament.
The Sacraments. Book
4, 4:14. [found in Jurgens,
William. The Faith of the Early Fathers,
Vol. 2, The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN. (1979), at pg. 176.]
Likewise, Saint John Chrysostom, a
contemporary of Saint Augustine:
I am about
to say what may appear strange, but be not astonished nor startled at it. The
Offering is the same, whether a common man, or Paul or Peter offer it. It is
the same which Christ gave to His disciples, and which the Priests now
minister. This is nowise inferior to that, because it is not men that sanctify
even this, but the Same who sanctified the one sanctifies the other also. For
as the words which God spoke are the same which the Priest now utters, so is
the Offering the same, and the Baptism, that which He gave. Thus the whole is
of faith.
These points are important to bear in mind
while reading Sermon 227. After all, what would have been the point of
requiring the catechumens to leave the Mass before the rites of the Mass of the
Faithful were recited if the Eucharist was merely a figurative or symbolic
commemoration of the Lord’s Supper? For
that matter, why was it necessary for an ordained priest to preside over the
Mass or consecrate the Eucharistic elements if Saint Augustine was a mere
symbolist or held that the Eucharist was similar to a Calvinist notion about
the Real Presence? Simply put, these inferences are further proof that Saint
Augustine believed that the change that occurred when bread and wine were
consecrated was far more substantial than TurretinFan would have his readers
believe.
Finally, before we begin our examination of
the text of Sermon 227, we should
touch upon Saint Augustine’s usage of the term “sacrament”. In the work On Catechizing the Uninstructed, 26:50, Saint Augustine advises
the Deacon Deogratias to teach catechumens as follows about the sacraments:
At the
conclusion of this address the person is to be asked whether he believes these
things and earnestly desires to observe them. And on his replying to that
effect then certainly he is to be solemnly signed and dealt with in accordance
with the custom of the Church. On the subject of the sacrament, indeed, which
he receives, it is first to be well impressed upon his notice that the signs of divine things are, it is
true, things visible, but that the invisible things themselves are also honored
in them, and that species, which is then sanctified by the blessing, is
therefore not to be regarded merely in the way in which it is regarded in any
common use. And thereafter he ought to be told what is also signified by
the form of words to which he has listened, and what in him is seasoned by that
(spiritual grace) of which this material substance presents the emblem.
(Emphasis added).
As noted in my previous article writing about
Sermon 272, before the catechumens were baptized or had
received the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, they were taught that the signs
of divine things are visible, but what is honored in them are the realities
underneath them which remain invisible.
Catholics, including Saint Augustine, believe that the sacraments are
not metaphorical or empty symbols, but
confer grace and point to the reality that Our Lord Jesus Christ is present in
the sacraments of His Church and is revealed through them. The material elements of the
sacraments–water, bread, wine, oil, and ritual– are mysterious signs of His
presence underneath the forms to cause us to want to enter further into the
mystery to seek Him. Nevertheless, once
we enter into the sacramental life, we will find Christ there. Moreover, Catholics do not prefer the
Scriptures over the sacraments as the sacraments are the visible expressions or
signs of the Word of God to His people, who themselves are part of the Body of
Christ.
In case one objects that I am reading too
much of modern Rome into Saint Augustine’s writings, I will let the reader
judge:
The
cleansing [of Baptism], therefore, would on no account be attributed to the
fleeting and perishable element, were it not for that which is added, “by the
word.” This word of faith possesses such virtue in the Church of God, that
through the medium of him who in faith presents, and blesses, and sprinkles it,
He cleanses even the tiny infant, although itself unable as yet with the heart
to believe unto righteousness, and to make confession with the mouth unto
salvation. All this is done by means of the word, whereof the Lord says, “Now
you are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”
2. Teaching
Christianity III, 9:13:
The Lord
Himself and the discipline of the Apostles have handed down to us just a few
signs instead of many, and these are easy to perform, and so awesome to
understand, and so pure and chaste to celebrate, such as the sacrament of
baptism, and the celebration of the Lord’s body and blood. When people receive these, they have been so
instructed that they can recognize to what sublime realities they are to be
referred, and they venerate them in a spirit not of carnal slavery, but rather
of spiritual freedom.
[Augustine,
Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. Teaching
Christianity. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 1996.]
3. Expositions
on the Psalms 17:12:
He shrouded
his sacraments in mystery, willing them to be a hidden hope in the hearts of
believers, to make a place where He might hide Himself without in any way
abandoning them for in this darkness, where we will walk by faith, not by
sight, we wait patiently in hope for what we do not see.
[Augustine,
Maria Boulding, and John E. Rotelle. Expositions
of the Psalms. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2000.]
Specifically, we see this same understanding
of “sacrament” as the visible sign of an invisible reality in Saint Augustine’s
treatment of the Eucharist:
You know
that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow
or the day after is the Lord's Passion,” although He suffered so many years
ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter
Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years
have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of
falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names
to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which
the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of
that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but
one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the
event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really
took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not
Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He
not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the
special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that
the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in
that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some
points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they
would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of
this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As,
therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body,
and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood, in the same manner the
sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing else than having faith;
and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising
faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has
faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made
that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the
answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle
says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: “We are buried with Christ by
baptism into death.” (Romans 6:4) He does not say, “We have signified our being
buried with Him,” but “We have been buried with Him.” He has therefore given to
the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word
describing the transaction itself..
2) Sermon
57:7:
So the Eucharist
is our daily bread; but we should receive it in such a way that our minds and
not just our bellies find refreshment.
You see, the special property to be understood in it is unity, so that
by being digested into his body and turned into his members we may be what we
receive. Then it will really be our
daily bread.
[Augustine,
and John E. Rotelle. Sermons (51-94) on
the New Testament. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1991.]
3) Sermon
112:5:
But how, we
may ask, did the occasion arise for the Lord to talk about this dinner? One of the guests–he was at a banquet, you
see, to which he had been invited–had said, Blessed
is the one who eats the bread in the kingdom of God. He was sighing for it as though it were a
long way off, and there was the bread itself seated in his presence. What, I mean to say, is the bread of the
kingdom of God, but the one who says, I
am the living bread, who have come down from heaven (Jn. 6:41)? Don’t get your gullet ready to eat, but your
mind. That precisely is the beauty of
this supper. We have believed in Christ,
I mean, and so we receive with faith. We
know what to think about as we receive; we receive a tiny portion, and in our
minds we take our fill. So it is not
what is seen, but what is believed that feeds us.
[Augustine,
and John E. Rotelle. Sermons (94A-147A)
on the New Testament. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1992.]
4) Sermon
229A:1:
What you can
see on the Lord’s table, as far as the appearance of the things goes, you are
also used to seeing on your own tables; they have the same aspect, but not the
same value. I mean, you yourselves are
the same people as you used to be, you haven’t brought us along new faces,
after all. And yet you’re new; the same
old people in bodily appearance, completely new ones by the grace of
holiness—just as this too is new.
It’s still,
indeed, as you can see, bread and wine; come the consecration, and the bread
will be the body of Christ, and that wine will be the blood of Christ. This is brought about by the name of Christ,
brought about by the grace of Christ, that it should continue to look exactly
what is used to look like, and yet should not have the same value as it used
to. You see, if was eaten before, it
would fill the belly; but now when it’s eaten it nourishes the spirit.
[Augustine,
Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. Sermons.
III/6 (184-229Z) Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1993.]
"
... 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.
But so far
as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in
which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phineas ate manna,
and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why?
Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually,
tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this
day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the
sacrament another.
And
the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, which the people of
God now-a-days read of without imitating, proves nothing else than this, that
those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing
near to God, and inducing our neighbor to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is
the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice.
...
And hence
that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became
the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of
God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God,
yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice,
that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that
sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who
offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily
sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to
offer herself through Him.
As shown above, according to the way Saint
Augustine uses the word “sacrament,” the visible elements of the Eucharist, the
species of bread and wine, after consecration are not the Body and Blood of
Christ, but signify, denote, and contain them.
The whole reality of Christ's Body and Blood is present beneath their
appearances, but are concealed from our senses.
Transubstantiation makes the Eucharist a sacrament of faith and is not
intended to be a scientific explanation.
The Catholic understanding of the sacraments
may have developed since Saint Augustine’s time, but his understanding of what
is a sacrament is still reflected in the theology of the Church today:
1333. At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration
are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the
Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the
Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he
did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took
the cup filled with wine. . . ." The
signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and
Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.
Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, fruit
of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the
earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees
in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and
wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.
(Emphasis
Added, footnotes deleted).
The Council of Trent’s teaching on the
Eucharist shows that this understanding is not an innovation of the 2nd
Vatican Council:
(Chapter
III)
On
the Excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.
The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in
common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing,
and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar
thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when
one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author
Himself of sanctity.
(Emphasis
Added).
The Augustinian understanding of sign and
reality is not just set out in the magisterial documents of the Church, but it
seen in the Mass itself. Let’s look at
how the sign of bread is used in the Mass of “modern” Rome. Even after bread and wine are consecrated and
become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholics still refer to
the outward species as “bread” and the “cup” just as Saint Paul did at 1 Cor.
11:16:
1) At
the Mystery of Faith, the congregation prays “When we eat this Bread and drink
this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.”
2) During the Eucharistic Prayer the
priest recites, “Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed
Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven
of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer to
your glorious majesty, from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim,
this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the
Chalice of everlasting salvation.”
3) Of
course, during the Lord’s Prayer the Eucharist is referred to as our “daily bread.”
The Catholic principle of “Lex orandi est lex credendi” or “the law
of prayer is the law of belief” compels me as a Catholic to accept the truth
the Church teaches that the Eucharist is both sign and reality. The question is whether Saint Augustine held
any differently? Based on the above
passages, I would emphatically say NO.
The dogma of Transubstantiation makes Saint Augustine’s words a reality
through faith. Faith penetrates the
sacramental signs, seeing under them the mystery-filled Body of Christ. Because of
Transubstantiation, the bread and wine are true signs of the reality of
Christ's body and blood.
For further reading on this subject, I urge
the reader to consider the following articles and books:
Portalie,
Eugenie. A Guide to the Thought of St.
Augustine. Chicago: H. Regnery Co,
1960, pages 214-215
O'Connor,
James T. The Hidden Manna: A Theology of
the Eucharist. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989.
For a contrarian view:
D. Text
and Commentary.
Armed with an understanding of what the
Catholic Church teaches on the dogma of Transubstantiation, some information
explaining the context in which Sermon 227
was given, and a thumb-nail sketch of Saint Augustine’s sacramental theology,
we are now ready to examine the text itself.
As a nota
bene, the version of Sermon 227
that TurretinFan uses is from The Works
of Saint Augustine III/6. New
Rochelle, NY: New City, 1993, pp.
254-255. It is not my favorite English
translation of that text. My favorite
translation of the text, and the one that I will be using is from Philip
Weller’s book, Selected Easter Sermons of
Saint Augustine. Saint Louis, Mo.: B. Herder Book Co, (1959). Text of Sermon
227 from that work will be highlighted in red.
Mr. Fan's self-expressions, where I have decided to interact with them,
will be in green. My commentary will be
in standard black.
Text: On the Eucharist ~ Easter Sunday (Migne 227)
Me: The title of the sermon was not provided by Saint
Augustine. This information was added
by a latter scribe or translator. Migne
227 refers to the numbering given the sermon by the 19th century
French priest Fr. Jacques-Paul Migne in his collection of patristic works
called The Patrologia Latina.
Interestingly, unlike his
apologetical or theological works, Saint Augustine never took stylus or quill
in hand to write out the sermons he preached in church. It was not something that professionally
trained rhetors did then. That so many
of his sermons are extant today is because
a bank of scribes sitting in the front of the congregation called notarii would write down what was said
(including at times congregational responses) at Mass which was then compared
and assembled into a single writing, which in turn, was copied and disseminated
to be read in the outlying parishes under the good Bishop of Hippo's
charge. Like most bishops in his day,
Saint Augustine did not allow priests to give sermons at Mass without his
permission.
Text: I remember my promise made to you
who have just been baptized, that I would explain in a sermon the sacrament of
the Lord's table, which you are even now witnessing and of which you were made
partakers last night.
Me: The infantes attended not only the Easter Vigil Mass, but the
Mass of Easter day as well. As mentioned
previously, before receiving the sacraments of initiation at the previous
Easter Vigil Mass, the catechumens would have not ever seen the rites of the
Mass of the Faithful prior to the Easter Vigil Mass.
We also see here Augustine’s
touching upon the Catholic teaching that Christ is not re-sacrificed again and
again at each Mass. Instead, the
Eucharistic celebration of the Mass makes Our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross
present to us. As partakers in that
once-and-for-all sacrifice, we receive the effects and grace from His passion,
death and resurrection.
1330. The Holy Sacrifice makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the
Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the
Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy
sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of
the Old Covenant.
Text: Surely you ought to know well what
you have received, what you will be receiving, and
what you should receive every day.
TF wrote: It seems that Augustine may be
advocating daily communion. Perhaps he means "every day" either as
hyperbole, or in some spiritual sense, but he may literally mean daily
communion. Regardless, this shows that they had received communion the previous
day and were about to receive it again.
Me: TurretinFan's perplexity as to whether Saint Augustine here is
advocating daily Mass may be a result of his Presbyterian background where
liturgical worship is generally reserved as a Sunday-only event. However, in Catholic dioceses which practiced
the African form of the Roman rite in the 5th century AD, Mass was
celebrated daily, usually in the morning since one was expected to fast prior
to Mass. That daily Mass occurred in
Hippo in Augustine's day is well attested to by Saint Augustine himself in the
texts that follow:
Someone
may say, "The Eucharist ought not
to be taken every day." You ask, "On what grounds?" He answers,
"Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to so great a
sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he lives in more special
purity and self-restraint; for 'whosoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and
drinks judgment to himself.'" (1 Corinthians 11:29) reminding them
that the principal thing is to remain united in the peace of Christ, and that
each should be free to do what, according to his belief, he conscientiously
regards as his duty. For neither of them lightly esteems the body and blood of
the Lord; on the contrary, both are contending who shall most highly honor the
sacrament fraught with blessing. There was no controversy between those two
mentioned in the Gospel, Zacchæus and the Centurion; nor did either of them
think himself better than the other, though, whereas the former received the
Lord joyfully into his house, (Luke 19:6) the latter said, "I am not
worthy that You should come under my roof,"(Matthew 8:8) — both honoring
the Savior, though in ways diverse and, as it were, mutually opposed; both
miserable through sin, and both obtaining the mercy they required. We may
further borrow an illustration here, from the fact that the manna given to the
ancient people of God tasted in each man's mouth as he desired that it might.
It is the same with this world-subduing sacrament in the heart of each
Christian. For he that dares not take it
every day, and he who dares not omit it any day, are both alike moved by a
desire to do it honor. That sacred food will not submit to be despised, as
the manna could not be loathed with impunity. Hence the apostle says that it
was unworthily partaken of by those who did not distinguish between this and
all other meats, by yielding to it the special veneration which was due; for to
the words quoted already, "eats and drinks judgment to himself," he
has added these, "not discerning the Lord's body;" and this is
apparent from the whole of that passage in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, if it be carefully studied.
(Emphasis Added).
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 no
ways 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.
(Emphasis Added)
3) Sermon 57.7
The Eucharistic bread should be
for us daily bread that we eat to make us live. When we have reached Christ
himself it will no longer be necessary to receive the Eucharist... So the
Eucharist is for us bread for everyday. We must, however, receive it in such a way that we not
only get new bodily strength, but also spiritual power. For the power that the
Eucharist gives is unity. This means that after we have received Christ's body
and become his members, we are what we have received. Only then does the Eucharist really become our daily bread.
However,
what I preach to you is also your daily bread. The same holds true for the
hymns that you hear and pray. All these things are necessary for our present
pilgrim journey through life. When, however, we have reached our destination we
will no longer need to hear the book being read. We will see the Word himself,
eat, hear and drink him. (Emphasis
Added).
[Augustine,
and John E. Rotelle. Sermons (51-94) on
the New Testament. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1991.]
And
hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He
became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the
form of God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one
God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a
sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to
suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the
Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the
sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through
Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the
various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one
thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when
we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices
have given place. (Emphasis Added)
For
she, when the day of her (Saint Monica) dissolution was near at hand, took no thought
to have her body sumptuously covered, or embalmed with spices; nor did she
covet a choice monument, or desire her paternal burial-place. These things she entrusted not to us, but
only desired to have her name remembered at Your altar, which she had served
without the omission of a single day; whence she knew that the holy sacrifice
was dispensed, by which the handwriting that was against us is blotted out;
(Colossians 2:14) by which the enemy was triumphed over, who, summing up our
offenses, and searching for something to bring against us, found nothing in Him
(John 14:30) in whom we conquer.
(Emphasis Added).
Was
not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet,
is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the
special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that
the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in
that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?
Daily celebration of the Mass was
an occurrence in Hippo long before Saint Augustine was the bishop. Saint Cyprian of Carthage, the favorite saint
of the people of Hippo, had this to say in Chapter 18 of his Treatise on the Lord's Prayer
written around 252
AD:
As
the prayer goes forward, we ask and say, “Give us this day our daily bread.”
And this may be understood both spiritually and literally, because either way
of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation. For Christ
is the bread of life; and this bread does not belong to all men, but it is
ours. And according as we say, “Our Father,” because He is the Father of those
who understand and believe; so also we call it “our bread,” because Christ is
the bread of those who are in union with His body. And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are
in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not,
by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and
not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from
Christ's body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, “I am the bread of life which
came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread, he shall live forever:
and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall
eat of His bread shall live forever; as it is manifest that those who partake
of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so,
on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest anyone who, being withheld from
communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from
salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.” And therefore we ask that our bread— that is,
Christ— may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not
depart from His sanctification and body.
(Emphasis Added.)
All of these texts demonstrate
that the Catholic Church in Hippo offered the Mass daily. This may seem to be a minor point tom some,
but it is a critical piece of evidence that Saint Augustine believed in Transubstantiation and the Real
Presence. If Saint Augustine believed
that the Eucharist was merely a figurative, metaphorical, or symbolic
commemoration of Our Lord’s passion as TurretinFan posits rather than a
transubstantial conversion of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be little point in offering Mass or
receiving communion on a daily basis.
Daily Mass only makes sense if there was really something or rather
Someone, as the introductory quote from Sermon
9 indicates, is offered as a sacrifice.
Some of the more radical Protestant reformers, such as Zwingli and his
followers, actively sought to eradicate daily liturgical worship and frequent
communion during liturgical worship precisely because daily Eucharist was
suggestive of a true sacrifice and as such promoted belief in the dogmas of
Transubstantiation and the Real Presence.
Text: The bread that you see on the
altar, sanctified by God's word, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, its contents.
sanctified by God's word, is the blood of Christ.
TF wrote: It may be that Augustine has
already consecrated the elements and has now, in essence, interrupted the
distribution of the elements to provide this homily. Alternatively, Augustine
may not be referring to the consecration at all. He may just be referring to
the fact that the word of God is what puts the elements to their sacramental
use. [T]he same explanation applied to
the cup. Some people seem to be willing to quote this sentence and the prior
one in an effort to allege that Augustine held to Transubstantiation. But, of course, such a statement is a
statement that could be used by those who are bare symbolists in their view, as
well as everyone in between.
Me: It is gratifying to see TurretinFan concede in a round-about
manner that Saint Augustine’s language could be read to support a belief in
Transubstantiation. However, he claims
that certain unnamed Protestant “bare symbolists” also use the same sort of
language to describe their understanding of the Eucharist. Unfortunately, he fails to offer any evidence
to support his assertion.
Rather than taking TurretinFan’s
word for it, let us see what Saint Augustine himself says on the matter. Besides Sermon
227, there are many Augustinian texts
that state what happens to bread and wine when they are consecrated by a
priest during Mass.
1) Sermon
228B
And
therefore receive and eat the body of Christ, yes, you that have become members
of Christ in the body of Christ; receive and drink the blood of Christ. In
order not to be scattered and separated, eat what binds you together; in order
not to seem cheap in your own estimation, drink the price that was paid for
you. Just as this turns into you when you eat and drink it, so you for your
part turn into the body of Christ when you live devout and obedient lives. He
himself, you see, as his passion drew near, while he was keeping the Passover
with his disciples, took bread and blessed it, and said, This is my body which
will be handed over for you (1 Cor 11:24). Likewise he gave them the cup he had
blessed and said, This is my blood of the new covenant, which will be shed for
many for the forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28).
You
were able to read or to hear this in the gospel before, but you were unaware
that this Eucharist is the Son. But
now, your hearts sprinkled with a pure conscience, and your bodies washed with
pure water, approach him and be enlightened, and your faces will not blush for
shame (Ps 34:5). Because if you receive this worthily, which means belonging to
the new covenant by which you hope for an eternal inheritance, and if you keep
the new commandment to love one another, then you have life in yourselves. You
are then, after all, receiving that flesh about which Life itself says, The
bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world; and unless
people eat my flesh and drink my blood, they will not have life in themselves
(Jn 6:51. 53). (Emphasis Added)
[From
The Works of Saint Augustine III/6. New Rochelle, NY: New City, 1993.]
We see Saint Augustine use the
Words of Institution by Our Lord to describe how the bread and wine becomes Our
Lord Himself and the effects of receiving the sacrament. Moreover, we see a reference to the Reserve
which explains that the deeper mysteries of the Eucharist were kept from the
catechumens until they were baptized.
2) Sermon
229=Denis 6
What you can see here, dearly
beloved, on the table of the Lord, is bread and wine; but this bread and wine,
when the word is applied to it, becomes the body and blood of the Word. That Lord, you see, who in the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Jn
1:1), was so compassionate that he did not despise what he had created in his
own image; and therefore the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), as
you know. Because, yes, the very Word took to himself a man, that is the soul
and flesh of a man, and became man, while remaining God. For that reason,
because he also suffered for us, he also presented us in this sacrament with
his body and blood, and this is what he even made us ourselves into as well.
[The Works of Saint Augustine III/6. New Rochelle, NY: New City, 1993]
As a footnote, a few scholars
contest the authenticity of parts of this sermon, the primary reason being that
a portion of the text appears to contain an interpolation. However, the section quoted above is not the
part of the text that was disputed.
Presuming that this sermon is truly Augustinian, that is, either given
by Saint Augustine himself or by one of his disciples, one can readily see how
the explanation of the change that occurs when the bread and wine are sanctified
pretty much mirrors the formal definition of doctrine of Transubstantiation as
held by “modern” Rome. Please note too
how ‘substantial’ Saint Augustine’s language here. The substance of bread and wine no longer
exist after consecration. Rather they
BECOME Body and Blood of a incarnate Christ, both human and divine – the divine
Word and the Word made flesh – synonymous with the Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity terminology modern Rome uses today.
Later in the same Sermon, we see
Augustine explaining the rites of the Mass and in the quote below we
specifically see him discussing the change effected by the consecration of the
elements:
And
from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going
to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood
of Christ. Take away the word, I mean,
it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what
is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take
away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the
sacrament. To this you say, Amen. To say Amen is to add your signature. Amen
means “True” [ ... ].
[Ibid.] (Emphasis Added)
Again, while some have advanced
objections against the authenticity of this section, I do not see how such
objections can be sustained as Saint Augustine employs almost the identical
theological language to explain the reality of the sacrament of Baptism in his
treatise Tractates on the Gospel of John:
But
it may be one says, Christ does indeed baptize, but in spirit, not in body. As
if, indeed, it were by the gift of another than He that any is imbued even with
the sacrament of corporal and visible baptism. Would you know that it is He
that baptizes, not only with the Spirit, but also with water? Hear the apostle:
"Even as Christ," says he, "loved the Church, and gave Himself
for it, purifying it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might
present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing." (Ephesians 5:25-27) Purifying it. How? "With the washing of
water by the Word." What is the baptism of Christ? The washing of water by
the Word. Take away the water, it is no baptism; take away the Word, it is no
baptism.
One can readily see the
similarity in sacramental understanding which certainly supports the notion
that Sermon 229 is indeed authentic
particularly when it follows closely Saint Augustine’s criteria for a
sacrament. Following the thought of
Saint Augustine himself, rather than the thought of TurretinFan, one would be
hard pressed to seriously argue that Augustine did not hold a view of the Real
Presence that is very "transubstantial." Not only does Saint Augustine state that
bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when the priest prays
over them, he states that the bread and wine become altogether “something
else.” Only Transubstantiation can
explain what that “something else” is.
Now if TurretinFan truly wants us
to believe that Saint Augustine did not believe in the doctrine we now call
Transubstantiation, it would behoove him to offer even a single example of from
at least one legitimate Calvinist bare symbolist scholar or theologian to
describe the Eucharist. Until
TurretinFan offers such a rebuttal, one would be hard put to claim that Saint Augustine's language here is anything
but "transubstantial".
Now lest one of TurretinFan’s
fans argue that I am placing too much weight on a disputed text, let's look at
one that scholars agree is authentic:
3) Sermon
229A = Guelferbytanus 7
Listen
to me, especially you who are now reborn to a new life and for that reason are
called infants, while I explain, as I promised, what-it is that you see before
you here on the altar. Pay attention also you, the faithful, who are long
accustomed to view this sacred rite, because it is for your benefit, too, that
we recall these things, otherwise you might forget them. The food you see here
on the Lord's table, you are accustomed to see on your own tables at home, as
far as outward appearances go. It has the same appearance, but not the same
worth -You, the newly baptized, remain the same individuals you were before; at
any rate you do not present different faces before this assembly. Nevertheless, you are indeed new men. Your
outward form is the same as before, but you are made new beings through
sanctifying grace.
And so this food is likewise
something new. Until now, as you see, it is simply bread and wine. But once the
Consecration takes place, this bread will be the body of Christ and this wine
will be the blood of Christ. It happens in the name of Christ and by the grace
of Christ, and even though it looks like it was before, yet its worth is not
what it was before. Had you eaten thereof before [the Consecration], it would
have supplied food to the stomach, but now when you partake, it gives
nourishment to the soul. (Emphasis Added)
Weller,
Peter. Selected Easter Sermons of St. Augustine. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co. (1959), p.
100. (Emphasis Added).
Compare this text with what I
have already placed before you as to "modern” Rome’s definition of Transubstantiation. Can one truly discern any difference between
the two? The physical form or elements
of the sacrament are unchanged, but a new reality exists beneath them.
Now compare the realism of
Augustine's teaching with what TurretinFan’s Orthodox Presbyterians hold and
profess in Chapter 29:5 and 29:6 of their Westminster Confession of Faith:
The
outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by
Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally
only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to
wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still
remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
That
doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the
substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by
consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture
alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the
sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of
gross idolatries.
Here, in order to attack the Holy
sacrament of the Eucharist, the Orthodox Presbyterians attack a straw-man
argument using pagan Aristotelian notions of substance as opposed to a proper
definition of substance that the Catholic Church uses as explained by Cardinal
Dulles above. (To be fair, some Catholic
scholars and theologians, too, attempt to use the same Aristotelian definitions
to explain the sacrament–explanations which in my mind also fall far short of
the mark and are not theologically defensible.)
Moreover, we see that TurretinFan’s Orthodox Presbyterians do not use
Saint Augustine’s definition of sign, using instead a more modern definition that ignores how it was used
scripturally or in the early Church.
Using such a false definition, it is very understandable why such folks see
the dogma of Transubstantiation as too carnal or idolatrous.
4) Sermon
234:2
"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."
The
Works of Saint Augustine III/7. New
Rochelle, NY: New City, 1993, pp.36-39
(Emphasis Added).
Again, we see Saint Augustine
using the traditional definition of Transubstantiation to explain the difference between bread and the
bread that receives the blessing from a priest.
Anticipating one of TurretinFan’s later claims, the disciples referenced
in the above passage from Luke had no less of a teacher of Scripture than
Christ Himself. Yet, they did not
understand what Jesus telling them until He gave a blessing over bread and
broke it. At the moment of Jesus
breaking the consecrated bread, the Emmaus disciples recognized Him. The Scriptures can lead one to seek Jesus,
but it is in the Eucharist we find Him.
“And
was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He
commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the
faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My
Body.”
Note that Augustine teaches here
that the bread became Our Lord’s body when He “said” the words, “This is My
Body,” the same words that every priest recites in the Eucharistic prayer which
transubstantiate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Can TurretinFan identify any Calvinist bare symbolist using the same kind of
language here as Saint Augustine?
6) Answer
to Faustus, A Manichean. Book XX:13.
But
I do not know what Faustus thinks that we practice the same religion with
respect to the bread and the cup, since for Manicheans to taste wine is not
religious but sacrilegious. For they
recognize their God in the grape; they refuse to recognize Him in the cup, as
if He had caused them some offense by being crushed and bottled. But our bread and cup, not just any bread and
cup, is made sacramental for us by a particular consecration; it is not
naturally such, as Manicheans say in their folly on account of Christ, who is
supposedly bound in the ears of grain and branches. Hence, what is not consecrated, though it is
bread and cup, is food for refreshment, not the sacrament of religion, apart
from the fact that we bless and give thanks to the Lord for every gift of his,
not only spiritually but also bodily.
The Works of Saint Augustine I/20 [New
Rochelle, NY: New City, 1993], pg. 273
We see Saint Augustine here
explain how the sacrament of the Eucharist is the visible expression of
Christ’s presence in the Church. All
sacraments in his mind are visible expressions of the Word of God, the Eucharist
especially so.
7) On
the Trinity, Book III: 4:10:
If,
then the Apostle Paul, though still carrying the burden of the body which is perishing
and weighing down the soul (Wis. 9:15), though still only seeing in part and in
an riddle (1 Cor. 13:12), still wishing to cast off and be with Christ (Phil
1:23), still groaning in himself, awaiting for the adoption, the redemption of
his body (Rom 8:23), if for all that he could use meaningful signs to proclaim
the Lord Jesus Christ, in one way by using his tongue, in another by writing
letters, in another by celebrating the Lord’s body and blood;*
*Note
that we do not call Paul’s tongue or his paper and ink the body and blood of
Christ, nor the significant sounds made by his tongue, nor the meaningful signs
written on the pages of his letters, but only that which is taken from the
fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystic prayers, and taken by us for our
spiritual salvation in memory of what the Lord suffered for us. The hands of men give this its visible
appearance, but it can only be consecrated into being such a great sacrament by
the invisible working of the spirit of God.
For all the physical movements involved in the whole action are worked
by God acting in the first place on what is invisible in the ministers, namely
on the souls of men or on the service of the occult spirits who are subject to
him.
(N.B.
~ This interlineation was made by Augustine himself to further explain the
text.)
need
we be surprised if God produces visible and sensible effects as he pleases in sky,
earth, sea and air, to signify and show himself as he knows best, without the
very substance of his being ever appearing immediately manifest, since it is
altogether changeless, and more inwardly and mysteriously sublime than all
created spirits?
Here is perhaps the clearest
example of Saint Augustine’s belief in the dogma the Church calls
Transubstantiation. Saint Augustine
presents the mysterious consecration of the Eucharist as the invisible working
of God. Man can make bread, and wine,
but to change them into so great a Sacrament, the God must operate. If this consecration merely refers to a
symbolic or figurative presence, in what way can one say that God is working in
the sacrament? Saint Augustine goes so
far as to state that what sets the Eucharist apart from God’s use of other
material things to give effect to His
Will is that God’s very substance is to be found there. The name for the process that makes His substance
present in the Eucharist is what the Catholic Church calls “Transubstantiation”.
I have presented eight different
texts from the works of Saint Augustine that show how the substance of bread
and wine, when consecrated, become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our
Lord. There are other texts that reveal
this thread of thought in Saint Augustine’s Eucharistic theology, but these I
think are fairly representative of that thought. One may cherry pick passages from other texts
to show that Saint Augustine also believed in a figurative or symbolic presence
in the sacrament, but that is not a problem in Catholic Eucharistic theology
because the Church teaches that the Eucharist is both sign and symbol. In reality such texts do not pose any problem
for the Catholic position when one reads those texts in the context of Saint Augustine’s
understanding of the terms “signs” and “sacraments” or for that matter, the
modern-day teaching of the Church as seen from Pope Ven. Paul VI’s words in the
encyclical Mysterium Fidei previously
quoted above:
“[that
Christ’s presence in the Eucharist] is called ‘real’ not as a way of excluding
all other types of presence as if they were ‘not real’, but because it is a
presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the
God-Man, is wholly and entirely present.”
Now TurretinFan, an Orthodox
Presbyterian, who apparently finds the doctrine of the Eucharist as taught by
the Catholic Church (as well as by Saint Augustine) to be repugnant to
Scripture and contrary to common sense and reason, might ask how is it possible
that Jesus be present bodily under the forms of bread and wine? I would respond with another question, how is
the transformation of bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood through the
invocation of the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit any more difficult to
accept than God Himself taking on flesh which is what happened at the
Annunciation when Mary, though a virgin, conceived Our Lord? Did not Our Lord become incarnate by the
power of the Word and the power of the Spirit?
That God, of Divine nature and spirit, taking on flesh may seem
impossible, yet Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox and even most
Protestants, adhere to it as a bedrock article of faith. God’s plan of salvation called for us to be
saved by His Son taking on flesh. He
continues to save through that same flesh.
For that matter, how did the
Creation come about? God spoke and the
world was made ex nihilo through the
power of the Word and the Spirit. Once
one accepts the truth that through the Word pronounced by God, creation came into
being, is it any more difficult to believe that through the power of the Word
and the Holy Spirit, the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, comes
into being under the appearances of bread and wine, a change the Church
appropriately calls “Transubstantiation”.
In case someone believes that I
am innovating here, I offer the following from the writings of Saint Ambrose,
Saint Augustine’s father in faith:
52.
We observe, then, that grace has
more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a
prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change
nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of
the Lord and Savior operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what
it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to
bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change
the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world:
“He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created.” Shall not
the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not,
be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is
not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.
53.
But why make use of arguments? Let
us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the
truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord
Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily
conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that
which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body
of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not
according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried,
this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.
54.
The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims:
“This is My Body.” (Matthew 26:26) Before the blessing of the heavenly words
another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He
Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after
it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart
within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.
(N.B
~ If there is any doubt that Saint Augustine shared Saint Ambrose’s view on the
Real Presence compare paragraph 54 of On
the Mysteries with Saint Augustine’s Sermon
2229 and Sermon 272 previously
cited.)
To sum up before we move to the
next passage, I would humbly submit to you the reader that the Augustinian
texts cited above conclusively establish that Saint Augustine did believe and
teach the dogma of Transubstantiation.
Text: Under
these forms Christ our Lord willed to bequeath His own body and the very blood
that He shed on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins.
Now the translation of the text
that TurretinFan uses in his discussion puts it slightly different:
It
was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his
body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins.
TF wrote: Here's
an interesting problem for those who think that Augustine is speaking after the
consecration: Augustine is saying that "by means of these things"
Christ wanted to present us with his body and blood. "These things"
refers to something other than the body and blood. As you can see, Augustine is
affirming that the elements are really bread and wine, and yet they present us
with Christ's body and his blood that he shed for our sake. If this is after
the consecration, then Augustine definitely does not believe in
Transubstantiation. But perhaps it is before the consecration, so let us
continue.
Me: TurretinFan’s objection that the language used by Saint
Augustine here somehow prevents an transubstantial understanding of the
Eucharist, but he fails to explain why he thinks that such is the case given
Saint Augustine’s view of signs and sacraments or how that this phrase is
inconsistent with the modern Catholic understanding of that dogma. Let us test his claim and see if it has any
resemblance to a fact.
First, we need to examine text
itself. Here is the sentence in Latin:
Per ista voluit Dominus Christus
commendare corpus et sanguinem suum, quem pro nobis fudit in remissionem
peccatorum.
The Latin phrase which gives Mr.
Fan pause is ‘per ista’. Per
is a preposition that could mean ‘in’, ‘through’, ‘by’, ‘by means of’, ‘under’,
or ‘during’. Ista is a pronoun that could be
understood as ‘that’, ‘that of yours’, ‘that which you refer to’ or
‘such’. While per ista could mean “by means of these things,” it could also be
understood a bit differently. Let’s see
how some Catholic scholars and theologians translate it in context with the
rest of the sentence:
1) Pope Benedict XVI:
Christus
totus in capite et in corpore
The
subject of the liturgy's intrinsic beauty is Christ himself, risen and
glorified in the Holy Spirit, who includes the Church in his work. Here we can recall an evocative phrase of
Saint Augustine which strikingly describes this dynamic of faith proper to the
Eucharist. The great Bishop of Hippo, speaking specifically of the Eucharistic
mystery, stresses the fact that Christ assimilates us to himself: “The bread
you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The
chalice, or rather, what the chalice contains, sanctified by the word of God,
is the blood of Christ. In these signs,
Christ the Lord willed to entrust to us his body and the blood which he shed
for the forgiveness of our sins. If you have received them properly, you
yourselves are what you have received.” Consequently,
not only have we become Christians, we have become Christ himself. We can thus contemplate God's mysterious
work, which brings about a profound unity between ourselves and the Lord Jesus:
one should not believe that Christ is in the head but not in the body; rather
he is complete in the head and in the body. (Emphasis Added)
Sacramentum Caritatis 36. (2007)
If anyone would have had a
problem with Saint Augustine’s language contradicting the dogma of
Transubstantiation, it would have been a pope, and a noted Augustinian scholar
to boot. However, since Pope Benedict
has interpreted the phrase “per ista” “these things” to mean “In these signs,” there must be a deeper
meaning to the phrase than the superficial purely carnal one TurretinFan gives
to it.
2) Daniel Sheerin.
Through these Christ Our Lord wished to
bequeath His Body and His blood which He shed for us for the forgiveness of
sins.
[The Eucharist. Vol.7 of the Fathers of the
Church series, pg. 97.]
3) William Jurgens.
Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to
commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of
sins.
[Vol. III of the Faith of the Early Fathers,
pg. 30.]
4) Philip Weller (the text above).
Under these forms Christ our Lord willed to
bequeath His own body and the very blood that He shed on our behalf for the
forgiveness of sins.
[Selected Easter Sermons of Saint Augustine. 1959, pg. 104.]
5) Mary Muldowney.
Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us
His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins.
[The Fathers of the Church: A New
Translation. Vol 38., at pg. 196. (Writings of Saint Augustine)]
6) Tarcisius Jan Van Bavel (another
Augustinian scholar).
These things, bread and wine, are what the Lord Christ wanted
to entrust to us. They are His body and
blood that He shed for us for the forgiveness of sins.
[Quoted
in Rolheiser, Ronald, Our One Great Act
of Fidelity: Waiting for Christ in the
Eucharist, New York: Image (2011), pg. 125.]
While some of the above
translators do translate “per ista”
to mean “things”, it becomes obvious reviewing all of the above translations
that “things” do not refer to mere bread and wine. All view physical bread and
wine as “signs”, “forms”, and “accidents” signifying something more–the Body
and Blood of Our Lord. Again, in order
to under Saint Augustine’s thought, we need to use his definitions. Remember Saint Augustine’s definition of
sacrament: a visible physical sign concealing an invisible reality underneath
it. While TurretinFan believes that this
language is somehow inconsistent with the Catholic teaching of
Transubstantiation, it is a mystery to me why he believes so, particularly when
the above texts show that modern Catholics
scholars uniformly see the bread and wine as “signs” of something more
significant in the same sense that Saint Augustine does. As we have already seen above, Saint Augustine’s
understanding of sacrament in his Eucharistic theology poses no difficulty
whatsoever for Catholics. In contrast,
the realism of Augustine’s Eucharistic theology does pose a great deal of
difficulty for Protestants.
In Augustine’s Eucharistic
theology:
(1)
The Eucharist is adored and not
only do we not sin in adoring the Eucharist, we sin by not adoring (Ennarations on Psalm 98:8).
(2)
The sacrament operates ex opere operato. (See my discussion of the subject in my last
paper on Sermon 272).
(3)
Further, the Last Supper is
considered as miraculous. Absent a
miracle, how else could Jesus carry Himself in His hands? (Ennarations on Psalm 33, Sermon 1:10; Sermon
2:2).
(4)
The bread and wine become the Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ but only through consecrating prayer of the bishop
and priest. (As discussed here in passim).
(5)
Unworthy communicants receive the
Body and Blood of Christ, but not the grace.
If there was no Real Presence in the Eucharist or if one adopts the
Calvinist notion of a subjective Real Presence, how could unworthy communicants
receive anything more than bread and wine contrary to what Augustine
attests? (Sermon 71:11, 17).
(6)
Most importantly, it is offered
daily as a sacrifice with Christ Himself as both the Offeror and the
Offeree. (Confessions,
Book 9, 12:32; 13:36; Contra Faustum 20:18; Questiones
Evangeliorum ex Matthew et Lucas, Book 2:33; Sermon 227; City of God,
Book 10:20; 17, 22:2; Ennarations on Psalm 33, Sermon
1:6).
(7)
Not only that, as seen here and
elsewhere, it is offered as a sacrifice that brings about the remission of sins
including for the dead (Sermon 159:1;
Sermon 172.2; City of God,
Book 20:9:2; Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 110; Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57; On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of
Infants,
Book 1, Chapter 34).
One more point that must not be
overlooked is that he never once in any of his extant works criticize or
correct the more openly “realistic” understanding of the Eucharist taught by
his spiritual teacher and mentor, Saint Ambrose of Milan, or of his
contemporaries or predecessors, such as Saint John Chrysostom. If their understanding on the power of
consecration was not shared by Saint Augustine as well, is there any doubt that
he would have corrected it given how Saint Augustine disputed with the Arians,
Manicheans, Donatists or the Pelagians?
For that matter, if Saint Augustine’s language that TurretinFan finds to
be so inimical to the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation actually undermined
it, is it possible that Pope Benedict XVI or any of the other Catholic scholars
or clergy listed above would not have tried to offer a rebuttal or a caveat? In short, TurretinFan’s claim is not a
substitute for evidence.
Text: Provided
you received this sacrament worthily, you are now the very thing you received.
Me: At this point of his catechetical instruction, Saint Augustine
tells us that Baptism initiates our unity to Christ and His Church. The sacrament of Chrismation/Confirmation
strengthens and deepens that unity so that it will be strong enough not only
for our own needs but for the needs of others with whom we shall try to share it. The Eucharist completes our union with
Christ. That is the effect or virtue of
the sacrament of the Eucharist which Saint Augustine makes clear here.
When Saint Augustine would give
Communion to someone for the first time, instead of saying to that person, “The
Body of Christ,” he would say to that person, “Receive what you are.” For Catholics, Jesus Christ Himself is the
center of our lives, the source and summit of all that we do. By receiving Our Lord in the sacrament of
Eucharist, Christ enters into us, and we
receive Him into ourselves. He brings His grace of new life into our souls, and
makes us more and more like Him.
So many Christians talk about the
necessity of having a "personal relationship" with Jesus, and yet,
they fail to realize the real intimacy that comes from being united with our
Lord in the Eucharist and the transformative power that comes from that
intimate union with Christ. Those like TurretinFan, a true son of the
Reformation, recognizes the sign in the Eucharist, but not the actual grace
that comes from it. By our sharing in
that Communion, we do not unite with just Our Lord, we really become united
with each other. We become one body, one
community, one heart, one spirit with each other.
Saint Paul uses marital language
in describing Christ’s union to the Church. In Ephesians he presents marriage
between a man and a woman as a type, that is, it is meant to mirror the
marriage between Christ and his Church. ”For this reason a man shall leave his
father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”
(Ephesians 5:31, 32). By virtue of the
Real Presence in the Eucharist made a verity through Transubstantiation, we unite
ourselves with Our Lord and become one flesh with Him. Sacramentally the Eucharist understood in
transubstantial terms gives verity to the conjugal union between Christ and
ourselves. That is what Saint Augustine is referencing here and what “modern Rome”
teaches today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1329. The Lord's Supper, because of its connection
with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his
Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the
heavenly Jerusalem. The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part
of a Jewish meal, when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the
bread, above all at the Last Supper. It is by this action that his disciples
will recognize him after his Resurrection, and it is this expression that the
first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; by doing
so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion
with him and form but one body in him.
1331
[We call it] Holy Communion, because by
this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body
and Blood to form a single body.
1382
The Mass is at the same time, and
inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is
perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood.
But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the
intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive
communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.
796
The unity of Christ and the Church,
head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a
personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of
bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was
prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist. The Lord
referred to himself as the "bridegroom." The Apostle speaks of the
whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride
"betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with
him. The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb. "Christ loved
the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her." He
has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring
for her as for his own body:
This
is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many...whether the head or
members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex
persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this
mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am
applying it to Christ and the Church." And the Lord himself says in the
Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." They are, in
fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as
head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."
(Footnotes
deleted)
This is why Catholics call “the
Eucharist the source and summit of the Christian life”. See Catechism of the Catholic Church #1324.
There are many wonderful books
that explore more fully this aspect of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the
Catholic life. Here are two I especially
like: Rolheiser, Ronald, Our One Great Act of Fidelity: Waiting for Christ in the Eucharist, New York:
Image (2011); Vonier, Anscar. A Key to
the Doctrine of the Eucharist. Bethesda, Md: Zaccheus Press (2003).
Text: For
as the Apostle says, "We being many are one bread, one body." That is how he interpreted the sacrament of
the Lord's table, "We being many are one bread, one body." By means
of this bread he impresses on you the high regard you must have for unity. For was this bread made of one grain of
wheat? Were not many grains required in its making? Yet before they became one
loaf each grain existed separately. Only after they were crushed and mixed with
water did they form one loaf. Unless
wheat is ground into flour and moistened with water, it never reaches the stage
of bread.
TF wrote: Here
Augustine is providing the wind-up for his extension of the Pauline metaphor. His
listeners, who understand how bread is made, are doubtless nodding along.
Me: If Saint Augustine is boring them with figures of speech
instead of verities, Saint
Augustine’s listeners would have been nodding off given their participation in
the Easter Vigil Mass a few hours earlier.
I have already discussed similar
words uttered by Saint Augustine in Sermon
272 in the last article I wrote in this series. I shall not
go in detail here again. What
TurretinFan describes as a Pauline metaphor, I call an explanation of the power
of the grace contained in the sacraments of initiation-the power that makes us
Christians, the power to open our hearts to the Word of God, and the power to
forgive sins and transform us into an unified community which is truly the Body
of Christ Himself. These sacraments are
the visible expressions of the Way, Truth and Life that is Jesus Christ
Himself.
Text: So
you, too, in a certain sense were. first ground by the lowly practice of
fasting and by the sacred rite of exorcism.
TF wrote: The
exorcism mentioned here is the denunciation of the devil and all his works.
Me: TurretinFan attempts to avoid the “Catholic-ness” of all
this. While the catechumens certainly
did denounce Satan and all of His works, the exorcisms mentioned here were
actually sacramental external rites that the catechumens underwent as a part of
their lengthy preparation for reception of the sacrament of baptism. See, for example, Sermon 216. There were
several forms of exorcism the catechumens underwent during the course of their
preparation for reception of the sacraments of initiation. One of the rites consisted of the signing the
cross on the catechumen's forehead,
laying on of hands and placing holy salt on the tongue. Another included the rite of ephphetha, a rite in which the bishop
sealed the catechumens from demonic possession by blowing air into the catechumen’s face, ears,
mouth and nose followed by signing them with the sign of the cross on the
forehead, ears and nose. The exorcism
rites and rituals performed by the bishop of Hippo and his clergy on the
catechumens to prepare them for reception of the sacraments of initiation were
performed often during the forty days of Lent leading up to the Easter Vigil
Mass. Would TurretinFan have us believe
that Saint Augustine would have put the catechumens through all this fuss over
a “Pauline metaphor?” Or is it more
reasonable to infer that the Church then believed that sacraments offered
something more true, real and substantial?
Even today, modern “Rome” still performs many of these same rites today
as part of catechumenate preparation.
These rites are now called “scrutinies”.
TF wrote: One
wonders whether the fasting required of those who were about to be baptized was
austere or whether the denunciations requested prior to baptism were
particularly onerous.
Me: Rather than offering speculation, there are several books out
there that describe in detail the rites and practices that leading up to the
reception of the sacraments of initiation.
Brown, Chris and Drury, Keith.
"Augustine’s Process for Receiving New Members" (Last Accessed: July 18, 2011).
Harmless, William. Augustine and the Catechumenate (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995).
Weller, Philip. Selected Easter Sermons of Saint Augustine. Saint Louis, Mo.:B. Herder Book Co, (1959).
Harmless, William. Augustine and the Catechumenate (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995).
Weller, Philip. Selected Easter Sermons of Saint Augustine. Saint Louis, Mo.:B. Herder Book Co, (1959).
To summarize, in Saint Augustine’s Church, the competentes
(catechumens actively preparing to receive the sacraments of initiation) fasted
daily. They did not eat any meals until
late in the afternoon, and when they did eat, they ate only one meatless
meal. The funds saved from not
purchasing food were then used for almsgiving.
Not only did they fast by not eating more than once a day, the
catechumens also abstained from all sexual relations with their spouses during
their time of preparing. They deprived themselves of wearing fancy
clothes; choosing instead to wear hair shirts next to their bodies. They received daily instruction in the
teachings of the Church, and prayed throughout the day as well as were prayed
over by clergy and baptized members.
All of this shows that the catechumens rigorously prepared themselves
mentally, spiritually and physically to be received into the Catholic
Church.
Text: Next the water of baptism was added, by which; as it were, you were
moistened in order to be formed into bread.
Me: Baptism was
the first sacrament of initiation done at the Easter Vigil Mass. Saint Augustine describes the sacraments of
initiation in this manner a number of times in his sermons and other writings,
some of which we have already referenced above.
For that matter, other Catholic saints before Saint Augustine used the
same sort of argumentation in their preaching as well. A notable example is from one of Hippo’s
favorite saints, Saint Cyprian:
Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone,
unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of
the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and
joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament
our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains,
collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in
Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with
which our number is joined and united.
Text: But there is yet no bread without fire. What, then, does fire signify?
Holy Chrism, the oil that supplies the tire, the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.
TF wrote: This is parallel to the third part of Augustine's analogy
in Sermon 272.
Notice here two interesting things. First, he confirms that he's
referring to the rite of chrismation when he speaks about the fire of the Holy
Spirit. He's talking about oil, which is fuel for fire. But notice that he
calls the oil "the sacrament of the Holy Spirit." Why? If you think
that "sacrament of the body and blood" means Transubstantiation, then
consistently you might believe that Augustine thought that the oil was
transubstantiated into the Holy Spirit.
Me: TurretinFan’s
tortured argumentation here ignores Saint Augustine’s understanding of signs
which we have already touched upon.
Moreover, TurretinFan fails to inform that Catholic Church views the sacrament of Eucharist as sui generis among the sacraments and
that the dogma of Transubstantiation is likewise unique to the Eucharist. Unlike the Scriptural references to Our Lord
taking bread and wine into His hands and blessing it and then announcing that
is His Body and Blood of Our Lord, there is no scriptural reference to Our Lord
taking oil, blessing it and announcing that it is now the Holy Spirit.
However, since this article is not about what TurretinFan
believes or I believe, but what Saint Augustine believes, let us see what Saint
Augustine says on the subject:
And by this ointment you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood,
which is indeed holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism[.]
“And you have an unction from the Holy One, that you may be manifest to
your own selves.” The spiritual unction is the Holy Spirit Himself, of which
the Sacrament is in the visible unction. Of this unction of Christ he says,
that all who have it know the bad and the good; and they need not to be taught,
because the unction itself teaches them.
Again, we see Saint Augustine’s use of the word
“sacrament” to be synonymous with the visible elements of the sacrament. Moreover, it is Jesus “the Holy One” who
confers the gift of the Holy Spirit on the confirmandi through ensealment with
the sacramental unction. Note that the
text does not say that the visible unction becomes the Holy Spirit. Rather, the Holy Spirit, the invisible
unction, can enter into the heart and soul of the confirmandi because they are anointed with the visible unction.
The grace of the two sacraments, the res tantum, are not the same grace.
The grace of confirmation/chrismation consists of a strengthening of the
inner character of the Christian, or Christian fortitude, if-you-will, to help
the person to know Christ and to be more like Him while the grace of the
Eucharist brings about the remission of sins and the incorporation of the
individual into the Body of Christ.
TF wrote: Everyone else, I think, realizes that Augustine means that
the oil (called chrism)symbolizes and pictures to us the Holy Spirit. It
pictures the Holy Spirit, because it is the fuel for fire, and the Holy Spirit
is symbolized by fire in Scripture.
Me: Given Saint
Augustine’s statement above that the invisible reality underneath the visible
unction, the “spiritual unction is the Holy Spirit Himself”, “everyone else” I
think realizes that Saint Augustine means that confirmation/chrismation is a
true sacrament from which the sealing of the confirmandi with holy oil allows
the Holy Spirit to indwell in them. As a
result of the reception of the second sacrament of initiation, the recipient
can now answer Saint Paul’s query at 1 Cor. 3:16, “Do you not know that you are
God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” with a resounding ‘YES’. Or perhaps TurretinFan would suggest that St.
Paul is only speaking symbolically or
metaphorically there in First Corinthians.
Text: Pay attention to the Acts of the Apostles when it is read to you; in
fact, it is now that we begin reading this very book-today we begin the book
called the Acts of the Apostles, and whoever wants to make progress finds
herein the proper inspiration.
TF wrote: Evidently, the Acts of the Apostles were going to be read
later in the service. Whether Augustine also preached a Sermon on Acts this
same day or whether the reading was not for a homily, we're not told. If there
was another Sermon coming, that would explain the brevity of this Sermon.
Me: Then as is
now, there is one New Testament book which is read during Mass starting on
Easter Day and the following fifty days of Easter season until Pentecost and
that book is the Acts of the Apostles.
Why? Because the Acts of the
Apostles is also called the Gospel of the Holy Spirit. The Acts of the Apostles
relates the birth, growth, and victory of the Church through the Holy Spirit's
power manifested through the apostles. What Saint Augustine is alluding to is
the power of the Holy Spirit that is still being manifested in the lives of the
followers of Christ through their reception of the sacraments of
initiation. The infantes will be
reminded of this every time they hear the Acts being read in future Masses over
the next fifty days.
TF wrote: Progress in what? It's not entirely clear what Augustine
is referring to. The means for making progress, though, is clear: it is
Scripture.
Me: Apparently
it is not clear as TurretinFan claims, or he would not have gotten it
wrong. Saint Augustine is telling the
faithful that if they wish to understand the power of the Holy Spirit, then
they will find their inspiration in the Acts of the Apostles. The “means” Saint Augustine is talking about
is the power of the Holy Spirit and how that power is transforms our hearts and
enable us to seek to be a part of the Body of Christ which is what the Acts of
the Apostles all about.
Text: When you are assembled in church, stop your idle gossip and apply
yourselves to a consideration of the Scriptures.
TF wrote: That's the Augustine we Reformed folks know and love. He
wants people to concentrate on the Scriptures. For him, the service is a place
where people concentrate on the Scriptures. How far removed had the church of
Rome and its Latin mass come by the time of the Reformation, when the
Scriptures were (in the services) mostly tucked away in a language that people
did not know.
Me: Whether
Reformed Christians actually “know” Saint Augustine is open for debate based on
TurretinFan’s ignorance of his theology.
The Mass in Saint Augustine’s day as now is true worship. Then as now,
the reading the Scriptures leads one to
enter into the Christian life starting with participation in the public liturgy
of the Church and receiving the sacraments.
Just as the disciples in the Emmaus story, Christians are led to Christ
by considering the Scriptures, but truly recognize Him in the sacraments. See, Sermon
234:2 cited above. Remember, for Saint
Augustine, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are visible expressions of
the Word of God. Contrary to
TurretinFan’s assertion, Saint Augustine here is exhorting his flock to take
their learning about the sacraments from the meaning of the Scriptures as
taught by bishops like Saint Augustine, rather than from silly stories or
gossip on the nature of the sacraments as told by people like TurretinFan.
Touching upon TurretinFan’s remarks against the Latin Mass
and reading the scriptures in Latin, his comment exposes why apologists who
hold themselves out as Christians perhaps should not write using a
pseudonym. Please take note that while
TurretinFan has a problem with the Latin Mass but hypocritically has no problem
trumpeting the five solas of the Reformation at the top of his homepage in Latin, or from providing his readers links to works of
the Church fathers in Latin or for that matter neglecting to mention that most of
the Reformers wrote in Latin. More
importantly, he neglects to mention to his readers that Sermon 227 was preached by Saint Augustine to his congregation in
Latin, that the Scriptures that Saint Augustine preached on were written and
read in Latin, and the liturgy of the Mass that the congregation participated
in was heard in Latin.
I would also suggest that the average man in the street
prior to the Reformation knew the Scriptures much better by attending Latin
Mass than the average man in the street of today despite the plethora of bibles
all in the vernacular. TurretinFan
merely recites a canard commonly spread by the Reformers and repeated by their
successors today. Further responding to
this perennial lie, I remember the story of one my favorite saints, Saint
Germaine Cousin, a poor, abused, and unschooled French girl who grew up during the
Reformation whose only education came from the Mass which she attended daily
(which was in Latin) and yet she was still able to teach catechism to small
children. Her whole life exposes the falsity of this lie of the Reformers. But that is a discussion for another day.
Text: It is we who unlock their sacred contents for you.
The text that TurretinFan uses puts it slightly
differently, “We here are your books.”
TF wrote: Do I need to point out that Augustine doesn't mean that we
are transubstantiated into books? Probably Augustine means that those who are
reading the Scriptures serve a similar role to books for those who either can't
afford their own Bible or who do not know how to read.
Me: TurretinFan’s
comments ignore the Catholic-ness of Saint Augustine’s statement. Since Transubstantiation is unique to the
sacrament of the Eucharist, Saint Augustine certainly would not have been
talking about it here since Saint Augustine is referring to his teaching office
as a Catholic Bishop. In Saint
Augustine’s day as is true today, bishops of the Church, including Saint
Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, by virtue of their apostolic succession, are
the authoritative teachers and interpreters of the Scriptures. Note that Saint
Augustine does not tell his followers that they are to privately interpret
Scriptures themselves. Because Saint
Augustine and his fellow bishops are the magisterial teachers on the meaning of
Scripture, they are the “books” of the faithful and the authoritative means
given to us by Jesus Christ for Christians to make progress in growing their
faith.
Text: Listen, then, and take note that the Holy Spirit is to come down on
Pentecost. And thus He will come, manifesting Himself in the form of fiery
tongues. For He breathes charity into us, filling our hearts with the love of
God and contempt for the world, consuming in us all that is dross, and
purifying our hearts like gold tried in fire. That is how the Holy Spirit
comes, the sacrament of fire after the sacrament of water, and you made a
bread, namely, the body of Christ.
Me: What is
important to remember is that contrary to what Orthodox Presbyterians like
TurretinFan believe, Saint Augustine believes that the sacrament of
confirmation/chrismation is just that-a sacrament. And since it is a sacrament, it is a vehicle
of God’s grace. And here Saint
Augustine’s alludes to the grace that is given to the believer and the virtue
or the res tantum that comes from the
reception of that grace-that by indwelling in us, the Holy Spirit brings love
of God and love for neighbor to one’s heart.
Unity is achieved with God and neighbor through one’s exercise of that
love in their life. Here is Saint
Augustine in another passage on the effect of the Holy Spirit’s very real
indwelling in the Christian’s soul:
"Nothing is more excellent than this gift of God. This alone is what
distinguishes between the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal
perdition. Other endowments too are given through the Holy Spirit, but without
charity they are of no use. Unless therefore the Holy Spirit is imparted to
someone to make him a lover of God and neighbor, he cannot transfer from the
left hand to the right. Why is the Spirit distinctively called gift? Only
because of the love without which the man who has not got it, though he speak
with the tongues of men and of angels, is booming bronze and a clashing cymbal;
and if he has prophecy and knows all mysteries and all knowledge and has all
faith so as to move mountains, it is nothing; and if he distributes all his
substance, and if he gives over his body to burn, it does him no good. What a great
good must it be then, without which such great goods cannot bring anyone to
eternal life! But if a man has this love or charity (they are two names for one
thing), and does not speak with tongues or have prophecy or know all mysteries
and all knowledge or distribute all his property to the poor, either because he
has not got any to distribute or because he is prevented by some family
obligation, it brings him home to the kingdom; yes, even faith is only rendered
of any use for this purpose by charity. Faith there can indeed be without
charity, but it cannot be of any use. That is why even the apostle Paul says,
"In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor [uncircumcision] is of any
value, but faith which works through love" (Gal 5:6); in this way he
distinguishes it from the faith with which even the demons believe and tremble.
So the love which is from God and is God is distinctively the Holy Spirit;
through him the charity of God is poured out in our hearts, and through it the
whole triad dwell in us. This is the reason why it is most apposite that the
Holy Spirit, while being God, should also be called the gift of God. And this
gift, surely, is distinctively to be understood as being the charity which
brings us through to God, without which no other gift of God at all can bring
us through to God."
Augustine, Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. The Trinity. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1991, at Book 15,
Chapter 18:32.
For a deeper discussion of Saint Augustine’s theology on
the Holy Spirit, kindly read the former Cardinal Ratzinger’s article
entitled, The Holy Spirit as
Communio: Concerning the Relationship of Pneumatology and Spirituality in
Augustine.
Text: And that is how unity is signified.
TF wrote: Notice how he says that unity is signified. He does not, of course, say
that unity is transubstantiated, nor does he mean any such thing. What means
here is that unity is pictured through the bread.
Me: Again, the
dogma of Transubstantiation refers to how Our Lord becomes present under the
species of bread and wine. Nothing
more. It does not explain the res tantum or the effect of the grace
that is imbued in the recipients of the Eucharist or in any other sacraments of
initiation for that matter, which is what Saint Augustine is referring to
here. Saint Augustine has moved on from
the Real Presence in the Eucharist that comes about because of
Transubstantiation to the ultimate effect of on the soul of a Christian by
receiving all three sacraments of initiation, which is union with God and with
each other. As Saint Augustine shows us
in Sermon 227 the power brought about
from our participation in these sacraments brings unity and charity. Baptism unites believers into the Body of
Christ. Confirmation strengthens that
union. Reception of the Eucharist
completes God’s work in us by uniting us with each other in Himself.
Text: Notice how the sacred ceremonies .follow in their proper sequence. The.
first thing after the prayer you are exhorted to lift up your heart on high.
This is most fitting for the members of Christ.
But if you have become the members of Christ, then where is your
head? For the members must have a head,
and unless the head takes the lead, the members will not follow. Where has your
Head betaken Himself? What are the words you recited in the Apostles' Creed?
"The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and
sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty." Our Head, therefore,
is in heaven. So at the words,
"Lift up your heart;" You respond, "We have lifted it up to the
Lord."
TF writes: Augustine is saying that it is proper to lift up our hearts, because as
members of Christ and Christ is our head (no mention of the bishop of Rome as
our head, but that's no surprise, since Augustine didn't believe such a thing).
Our head is in heaven, and so we properly lift up our hearts to the Lord, as
members of Him. Remember, Augustine has in the background the metaphor of the
one bread. That one bread is the body of Christ, and we - like grains - are
members of that one bread, in Augustine's explanation. Notice Augustine's
reference to the creed, as in the other sermon. He clearly assumes that these
new converts are at least familiar with the creed and that they can recite it
(give it back).
Me: We now see
Saint Augustine relate Catholic theology to the parts of the Mass. The part of the Mass he is explaining to the
Infantes is the prayers contained in the Eucharistic Prayer, starting with the
Sursum Corda, which we will touch on in a bit.
This instruction on the prayers of the Eucharist is necessary because
the infantes up to this point would be in a fog as to the meaning and
significance of these prayers.
Addressing TurretinFan’s remarks directly, I have no doubt
that Saint Augustine would not have
believed that the Bishop of Rome
is the head of the mystical Body of Christ since the Catholic Church has never
taught such a thing. We Catholics
recognize only Jesus Christ as the head of the Body of Christ.
That said, I also have no doubt that Saint Augustine would
recognize the Bishop of Rome as having primacy and authority on earth over him
and the other bishops of the Church.
Here are a few of Saint Augustine’s writings on point to refute
TurretinFan’s assertion as to what Saint Augustine thought about the authority
of the Bishop of Rome:
1) Letter
175 [From the Council of Milevis of Sixty-one Bishops (Including Augustine)
to Pope St. Innocent I]
Whereas, by a particular gift of His grace the Lord has placed you in the
Apostolic See and has given to our times
a man like you to reign over us, it would be more possible for us to be
charged with the guilt of negligence if we failed to report to your Reverence
(a.k.a. the Pope) matters which need to be made known for the benefit of the
Church than for you to receive such suggestions coldly or negligently, we
therefore beg you to deign to apply your pastoral care to the great perils of
the weak members of Christ.
...
Trusting in the merciful help of the Lord our God, which deigns to guide
you in your plans and hear you in your prayers, we think that those who hold these distorted and dangerous views will
readily submit to the authority of your Holiness, which is derived from the authority
of the holy Scriptures, so that we may congratulate you on their conversion
rather than grieve over their loss, most holy lord. But, no matter what choice they make, your
Reverence surely sees that immediate and speedy provision must be made for the
others whom they are able to trap in their snares in great numbers if this is
not made known to them.
We are addressing this written report to your Holiness from the Council
of Numidia, imitating the Church at Carthage and our brother bishops of the Carthaginian
province, having heard that they have written on this matter to the Apostolic
See which you so blessedly adorn. May
you increase in the grace of the Lord and be mindful of us, most holy lord,
honored and saintly Pope, worthy of our veneration in Christ.
(Emphasis
added.)
Augustine, and Wilfrid Parsons. Letters
Volume IV, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981.
Now if Saint Augustine did not think that the Bishop of
Rome did not have authority over him, why was he a signatory to this letter to
the Pope? But just in case he somehow
got tricked into signing this letter, let’s see if there are any other texts
that are suggestive of his view of the papacy.
I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter
in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am
showing disrespect towards Peter. For
who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to
any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their
sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom.
(Emphasis
added.)
3) Psalmus
contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51:
Carthage was also near to the countries beyond the sea, and distinguished
by illustrious renown, so that it
had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard
even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united
by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an
apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa
itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these
Churches if his adversaries attempted to cause an alienation of them from him.
Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of
Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of
hell do not prevail.
4) Christian
Combat, 31:33 (A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51
Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to
forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in
Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from
their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
5) Epistle
53:2 [To Generosus] (A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:29
For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with
how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we
reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord
said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in
unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander,
Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor,
Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius,
Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus,
and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order
of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of
things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting
himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some
notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were
known.
Neither Saint Augustine nor I would recognize the pope as
the head of the Church, but both Saint Augustine and I do recognize his
authority over us by virtue of his office that Our Lord instituted.
Text: And lest you begin to attribute this to your own powers to your own
merits, to your own efforts, although it is only by the grace of God that you
can elevate your hearts, the bishop or the priest who is offering the
Sacrifice, immediately after the people have responded, "We have lifted
our heart to the Lord," adds the words, "Let us give thanks to the
Lord our God." In other words, we thank almighty God for the fact that our
heart are lifted up to Him, for unless He grants His assistance our heart would
be fettered to the earth. That is why you attest your approval by saying,
"It is right and praiseworthy" that we render thanks to Him, who has
made it possible for us to raise our heart to our divine Head.
TF wrote: Augustine
is continuing to explain the liturgy of his particular church. It is clear, you
see, that they had a particular liturgical form in which after the person who
is offering says "lift up your hearts" the congregation replies
"we have lifted them up to the Lord," and then the person offering says
"Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, because we have lifted up our
hearts." It's a set form, and interactive, capturing the attention and
participation of the congregation.
Me: Saint
Augustine is explaining to his congregation the meaning of the Sursum Corda,
the prayer that begins the Eucharistic Prayer or the Canon of the Mass which is
the central feature of the Mass both in the days of Saint Augustine and in
today’s Catholic Church. Saint Augustine
is not explaining a prayer used in the “liturgy of his particular church.” He is explaining the meaning of a prayer that
is recited in every Mass in every Catholic Church in the world since the time
of the Apostles. We’ll discuss the
importance of the Sursum Cor as a Eucharistic prayer in a moment.
Before we do, I must say that I find it interesting to see
TurretinFan’s reticence in referencing that it is the priest offering the
sacrifice of the Mass here. Such is
understandable as TurretinFan knows that if there is no priest, there is no
sacrifice of the Mass. For that matter,
there is no Transubstantiation if there is no priest to consecrate the physical
elements of bread and wine. It is not
just a “person” offering the sacrifice of the Mass, it is the priest or
bishop.
TF wrote: And here is an explanation of what
Augustine is saying, namely that God enabled us to lift up our hearts, else we
would not have been able to lift them up.
...
And here is the concluding line of
the congregation's response. The congregation actually acknowledges that God
caused them to lift up their hearts to their head (meaning to Christ).
Me: Here
Augustine explains how grace sacramentally coming to us operates so as to make
our works grace itself. The Eucharistic
Prayer is the heart of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. In this prayer we see the priest-bishop
celebrant acting in the person of Christ as head of his body, the Church. The back and forth language of the dialog
shows that the celebrant offers not only the bread and wine, but the substance
of our lives and joins them to Christ’s perfect sacrifice, offering them to God
the Father. The Sursum Corda that Saint
Augustine is breaking down here establishes that the Eucharistic Prayer is not
a private prayer of the priest, but is in fact the prayer of the whole faithful
offered in the presence of God and demonstrates that the sacrifice of the
Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving (eucharista=thanksgiving). While we adore Christ who becomes present in
our midst, the liturgical action here also celebrates the action of Christ the
priest as well as His Body, the Church.
Not only does Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity become present
through the consecration of the bread and wine, but Christ’s saving action does
as well. The liturgical action here is a
remembrance in the biblical sense, an anamnesis, a zikkaron. As the Sursum
Corda shows, it is not just the priest lifting up the once-and-for-all
sacrifice of Our Lord to the Father, but all of the baptized who offer this
sacrifice of thanksgiving in union with Christ.
Moreover, we do not offer Christ alone, but ourselves in
the sacrifice as well. Imperfect as that
offering of ourselves may be, it becomes perfect when it is joined with the
offering of Our Lord to the Father.
(See, Roman Missal formation materials
provided by the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the United States Conference of
Bishops, 2010)
Text: God has willed that we ourselves should be a sacrifice to Him, as was
shown in the words onetime used, ''We are God's sacrifice"-we are the
thing which is offered.
TF wrote: Evidently, the text of this Sermon is "corrupt" here, and the
translator has done his best to convey the sense. So, we should probably be
careful about how much weight we place on the exact wording. Nevertheless, the
point is that this sacrifice is a sacrifice of us! The bread is the sign of the
thing that we are. As in the previous sermon, Augustine's point is not one that
is very helpful for Transubstantiation. If Augustine's terminology about the
bread being the "sign" is to be taken in transubstantial terms, we
ourselves would be transubstantiated. But if, instead, Augustine means for us
to understand simply an ordinary sign, then the sermon makes more sense.
Incidentally, it should be noted that
Augustine elsewhere speaks about us being the sacrifice, for example in City of
God, Book X, Chapter 6 ("This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being
many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church
continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in
which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to
God.").
Me: TurretinFan
sets up a straw-man argument for his readers that Catholic teaching pertaining
to the dogma of Transubstantiation states we are likewise transubstantiated by
receiving Our Lord. He misrepresents
that the sacramentum is the same as
the res rather than accurately
present the Church’s teaching that the sacrament of the Eucharist contains both
sign and reality. As stated earlier in
the magisterial documents that I presented to the reader, the dogma of
Transubstantiation states that only the substance of bread and wine become the
Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ when consecrated by a
priest. The accidents, the physical
characteristics of the bread and wine, remain unchanged.
Furthermore, Saint Augustine has moved on from how Christ
becomes present in the Eucharist to the effect of our participation in it. It is through the Eucharist that the
sacrifice of the Church (which is the members of the Church who are the Body of
Christ) are united with the sacrifice of Our Lord. Only through the dogma of Transubstantiation
is it possible for our imperfect sacrifice of ourselves to the Father to be
meaningful or worthy because such is united with the true and real sacrifice of
Our Lord. Interestingly, we see the
Saint Augustine's Sermon 272 being
quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church on this
point:
1396. The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist
makes the Church. Those who receive the
Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to
all the faithful in one body—the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and
deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In
Baptism we have been called to form but one body. The Eucharist fulfills this
call: “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? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for
we all partake of the one bread:”
If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that
is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To
that which you are you respond “Amen” (“yes, it is true!”) and by responding to
it you assent to it. For you hear the words, “the Body of Christ” and respond
“Amen.” Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.
(Footnotes
omitted).
Now TurretinFan claims that the dogma of
Transubstantiation is incompatible with the symbolism seen in the sacrament of
the Eucharist and the grace received from partaking in communion especially in
light of what Saint Augustine states in Chapter 10:6 of the City of God. If the dogma of Transubstantiation is so
opposed to what Saint Augustine is saying here as suggested by TurretinFan, one
must wonder why the quote from Chapter 10:6 from the City of God also is featured so prominently in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church:
1368. The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the
Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of
her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself
to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice
of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of
the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those
of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's
sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of
Christians to be united with his offering.
In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer,
arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his
arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and
intercedes for all men.
1372. 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.[194]
Note 194: St. Augustine, De civ Dei (City of God), 10, 6: PL 41,
283; cf. Rom 12:5.
TurretinFan’s thought also reveals that he perceives that
Catholics think of the Real Presence in carnal terms only. That is the heresy of Capharnaitism (See,
John 6) which the Church totally rejects.
We do not believe that we are eating pieces of Jesus’ body or eating
Jesus burgers or drinking Jesus juice.
Rather, in both Saint Augustine’s time and in today’s “modern Rome,” the
Church teaches that it is only the substance of the host and the contents of
the chalice that has been changed into the risen and glorified Body of Christ
which although fully corporeal and real, is a sacramental presence, not a carnal
presence. The benefit of the Eucharist
is spiritual, not carnal. We receive
grace, not nutrition, by communicating with Christ.
Again, here is what Saint Augustine’s teacher, Saint
Ambrose taught:
Wherefore, too, the Church, beholding so great grace, exhorts her sons
and her friends to come together to the sacraments, saying: “Eat, my friends,
and drink and be inebriated, my brother.” (Song of Songs 5:1) What we eat and
what we drink the Holy Spirit has elsewhere made plain by the prophet, saying,
“Taste and see that the Lord is good, blessed is the man that hopes in Him.” In
that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not
bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type: “Our fathers
ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink,” (1 Corinthians 10:3) for the
Body of God is a spiritual body; the Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine
Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ, as we read: “The Spirit before our face is
Christ the Lord.” (Lamentations 4:20) And in the Epistle of Peter we read:
“Christ died for us.” (1 Peter 2:21) Lastly, that food strengthens our heart,
and that drink “makes glad the heart of man,” as the prophet has recorded.
For a more detailed, and far more eloquent and elegant
explanation of what I am saying, I found an article written by Canon George D.
Smith entitled The Sacrament of the
Eucharist,
particularly Chapter VIII entitled “The Effects of the Sacrament” which I would
encourage the reader to peruse.
Text: After the consecration of the divine Sacrifice has been effected we say
the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer which you were taught and have recited. This is
followed by the words, "Peace be to you," and the Christians give one
another the holy kiss of peace. A kiss
is the symbol of peace, a sign that what the lips express. outwardly is true of
the interior conscience; in other words, just as your lips are joined to those
of your brother, so your hearts should always be united.
Me: I have
decided not to interact with TurretinFan’s comments in regards to The Lord’s
Prayers and the Sign of Peace as they are irrelevant to the point of this
article-whether Saint Augustine believed anything different than today’s
Catholic Church in regards to Transubstantiation. That said, both the Lord’s Prayer and the
Sign of Peace do touch upon that dogma.
For Saint Augustine, the Lord’s Prayer is the most
important prayer in the life of a Christian, “Whatever else we say when we
pray, if we pray as we should, we are only saying what is already contained in
the Lord’s Prayer” (Letter 121:12).
In the context of the Liturgy of the Mass, it is the first prayer in the
Communion Rite. In Saint Augustine’s Mass as well as the Mass of “Modern Rome,”
the Communion Rite begins with the Lord’s Prayer, moves into the Sign of Peace
and concludes with the actual receiving by priest and people of the Body and
Blood of the Lord. The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer of petition, of forgiveness,
and a prayer of expectation. The Lord’s
Prayer also refers to our participation in the Eucharist as a type of the
messianic feast when Our Lord comes again and establishes His kingdom for all
time.
Here are some passages reflecting how Saint Augustine
related the Lord’s Prayer and the Eucharist:
For
even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue
of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die
indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle says, “Eats and drinks judgment to
himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:29) For it
was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he
took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he
received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an
evil way. See ye then, brethren, that you eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual
sense; bring innocence to the altar. Though your sins are daily, at least let
them not be deadly. Before ye approach the altar, consider well what you are to
say: “Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors.” (Matthew 6:12) You
forgive, it shall be forgiven you: approach in peace, it is bread, not
poison. But see whether you forgive, for
if you do not forgive, you lie, and lie to Him whom you cannot deceive. You can
lie to God, but you cannot deceive God.
There
is a spiritual food also which the
faithful know, which you too will know, when you shall receive it at the altar
of God. This also is “daily Bread,” necessary only for this life. For shall we
receive the Eucharist when we shall have come to Christ Himself, and begun to
reign with Him forever? So then the Eucharist is our daily bread; but let us in
such wise receive it, that we be not refreshed in our bodies only, but in our
souls. For the virtue which is apprehended there, is unity, that gathered
together into His body, and made His members, we may be what we receive. Then
will it be indeed our daily bread.
“Give us this day our daily bread,”
comes next in the Prayer. Whether we ask here of the Father support necessary for the body, by “bread” signifying
whatever is needful for us; or whether we understand that daily Bread, which
you are soon to receive from the Altar; well it is that we pray that He would
give it us. For what is it we pray for, but that we may commit no evil, for
which we should be separated from that holy Bread. And the word of God which is
preached daily is daily bread. For because it is not bread for the body, it is
not on that account not bread for the soul. But when this life shall have
passed away, we shall neither seek that bread which hunger seeks; nor shall we
have to receive the Sacrament of the Altar, because we shall be there with
Christ, whose Body we do now receive; nor will those words which we are now
speaking, need to be said to you, nor the sacred volume to be read, when we
shall see Him who is Himself the Word of God, by whom all things were made, by
whom the Angels are fed, by whom the Angels are enlightened, by whom the Angels
become wise; not requiring words of circuitous discourse; but drinking in the
Only Word, filled with whom they burst forth
and never fail in praise. For, “Blessed,” says the Psalm, “are they who
dwell in Your house; they will be always praising You.”
When
we say: "Give us this day our daily bread," the word "this
day" signifies for the present time, in which we ask either for that
competency of temporal blessings which I have spoken of before ("
bread" being used to designate the whole of those blessings, because of
its constituting so important a part of them), or the sacrament of believers,
which is in this present time necessary, but necessary in order to obtain the
felicity not of the present time, but of eternity. When we say: "Forgive
us our debts as we forgive our debtors," we remind ourselves both what we
should ask, and what we should do in order that we may be worthy to receive
what we ask.
As Saint Augustine shows, we cannot receive forgiveness of
sins unless we are prepared to forgive our neighbor and provide an outward sign
of that forgiveness. In Saint
Augustine’s sacramental thought, the reverent recitation of the Lord’s Prayer
and reception of the Eucharist with the proper disposition even has the power
to forgive venial sin. This thought is
still present in the Church. See, Catechism of the Catholic
Church 1394, 1436,
1437. “For both individuals and nations,
forgiveness is the only way to peace” as Pope St. John Paul II said in his annual message for Lent 2001.
This aspect of the Lord’s Prayer naturally leads directly
into the Sign of Peace as a sign of that forgiveness as expressed here as well
as in many of Saint Augustine’s writings:
Then the Lord’s Prayer is said, the prayer that was handed over to you
and that you in turn gave back. Why is
this prayer said before one receives the body and blood of Christ? Because it may have happened, through human
frailty, that our mind conceived an improper thought, or that our tongue let
slip an unseemly word, or that our eyes gazed on an indecent object, or that
our ears listened avidly to evil speech.
Now if anything of the like was committed through worldly temptation and
human frailty, then all is blotted out by the Lord’s Prayer, namely, when one
says, “Forgive us our trespasses.” And
thus we can approach the sacrament in the assurance that we do not eat and
drink in our condemnation.
This is followed by the words, “Peace be to you.” What a lofty sign is the kiss of peace! Let this kiss be given so as to foster mutual
love. Be not a Judas. Judas, the traitor, kissed Christ with his
mouth, although there was treachery in his heart. If it happens that a person is unfriendly to
you, and you cannot win him over, then you must bear with him. Your heart must not repay his evil with
evil. If he hates you, you must love him
nevertheless, for then you can feel free to give him the kiss of peace.
Sermon 229=Denis VI (Cited above)
The Sign of Peace is meant to be much more than just a
polite demonstration to those near to us at Mass. As with everything else in
the liturgy, it has great purpose and meaning.
The sign of peace is just that–a sign of unity. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI instructs:
"By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this
dimension of the Eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of
peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times,
fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent,
as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray
insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human
family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every
heart."
Text: What wonderful, what sublime mysteries meet us here! Would you like to know how greatly they must
be revered? "Whosoever," says the Apostle, "shall eat the body
of Christ, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the
body and of the blood of the Lord."
How does one receive this sacrament unworthily? By receiving it in
mockery or in a spirit of contempt. Do not presume to regard it with scorn
because of what you see with your bodily eyes. What your eyes behold is
transitory, but the invisible, reality signified is not transitory but permanent.
You see, it is received, eaten, and consumed. but, is the body. of .Christ
consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ
consumed? By no means! Instead, here on earth His members are
purified, so that in the next world they may wear the crown of everlasting
life. So what is signified will endure forever, even though it seems to pass
away.
Approach this sacrament, therefore,
with the realization that its purpose is to strengthen you in unity and to keep
your hearts forever fixed on the things that are above. Your hope is in heaven,
not on earth. If your faith is centered
in God, it will be pleasing to God. For
what you now accept on faith, even though you do not see it, will be made
manifest to you in heaven, where your joy will know no end.
Me: Saint
Augustine draws the attention of the newly-baptized infantes to the reality of
the Eucharistic species, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the
invisible reality beneath the visible signs.
He cautions them that this is a sacrament of faith, not to judge the sacrament from its
appearances, which passes away, lest they fail to recognize that the reality,
the substance of the sacrament, Our Lord Himself, is eternal and will never
pass away. In order to receive the
sacrament of the Eucharist worthily, we must receive it as the sacrament of
unity. And in order for the Eucharist to be a sacrament of unity, it must be
received in a spirit of peace. We see
this discussed in more detail in Saint Augustine’s Tractate on the Gospel of John 26:17-18:
17.
“For my flesh,” says He, “is meat
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” For while by meat and drink men seek to
attain to this, neither to hunger nor thirst, there is nothing that truly
affords this, except this meat and drink, which does render them by whom it is
taken immortal and incorruptible; that is, the very fellowship of the saints,
where will be peace and unity, full and perfect. Therefore, indeed, it is, even
as men of God understood this before us, that our Lord Jesus Christ has pointed
our minds to His body and blood in those things, which from being many are
reduced to some one thing. For a unity is formed by many grains forming
together; and another unity is effected by the clustering together of many
berries.
18. In
a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it
is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eats my flesh, and drinks
my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” 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], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of
so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed
to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that
is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God.” Matthew 5:8
Saint Augustine builds on Saint Paul’s thought. In 1 Corinthians, Saint Paul speaks of how we
must receive the Eucharist as a community.
There, he warns against the divisions that separate people before they
receive communion. Saint Augustine
explains why. Revisiting Sermon 272:
So why in bread? Let's not bring anything of our own to bear here, let's
go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this
sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and
rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one
body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain,
but from many. When you were being exorcized, it's as though you were being
ground. When you were baptized it's as though you were mixed into dough. When
you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it's as though you were baked. Be
what you can see, and receive what you are. That's what the apostle said about
the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about
the cup, even if it wasn't said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into
one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what
holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and
one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just
remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but
the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the
Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated
the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the
sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the
sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves.
CONCLUSION
I apologize for the extraordinary length of this article
offered as a response to TurretinFan’s
commentary on Sermon 227, but I hope
the reader has found it helpful in understanding Saint Augustine’s Eucharistic
theology and how closely it corresponds with the present-day Catholic Church’s
dogma of Transubstantiation. I submit
that Saint Augustine did believe, when the priest consecrates bread and wine by
speaking the Words of Institution, their substance is converted into the Body
and Blood of Our Lord. If understood
correctly, Transubstantiation is not a doctrine that should separate us
Christians. Rather, it provides the
means that makes the Eucharist truly a sacrament of peace and unity. That is- only if we accept on faith Jesus
Christ who is truly and really present in the Eucharist.
God bless!
