Augustine on the Eucharist
Brace Yourself.
I sometimes wonder how the Reformers claimed to get some of their best material from this guy.
ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)
"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. 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." (Sermons 227)
"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)
"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Ennartiones on the Psalms 33:1:10)
"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)
"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)
"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Ennarationes on the Psalms 98:9)
"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)
"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Ennartiones on the Psalms 33:1:10)
"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)
"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)
"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Ennarationes on the Psalms 98:9)
posted by MM at 11:52 AM
12 Comments:
MM - why so much animosity against the "reformed" faith on this blog as of late?
MB,
I certainly dont want there to be animosity on this blog; but sometimes it takes a commentor of good will like yourself to point it out where the appearance of animosity pops up... :)
In this post, I did not intend to sound anti-reformed. Reforms are ipso facto good things. However, I have often 'heard' in my studies that the Protestant Reformers- particularly the big shots like Luther and Calvin-drew heavily on Augustine and other of the early Church Fathers to support their case. And, it makes for interesting and controversial blog posting where the Church Fathers make statements that are clearly contrary to the positions of the Reformers. Here, for instance, Augustine sounds so very "Roman Catholic" about the Eucharist. (though of course he would not have been aware of the Catholic/Protestant/Reformed distinctions that we make today)!
Other readers: feel free to point out when and where you find animosity here. I like controversial posts because I like conversation, and this blog's readers comment/respond far too infrequently (more often I get personal phone calls or emails in response, rather than commentary, and this is unfair! - We have Anglo Catholic PRIESTS on board to help field comments. I'm just a girl ;)
-But no time like the present- weigh in! ... does anybody else have complaints of animosity? If so, it's time for a reformation...
The thing is, even Luther and Calvin sound Roman Catholic to many American Evangelicals, who for the most part don't even do Zwinglianism justice.
MM,
The problem is that a large majority of people in this highly secularized, Koolaid-drinking milieu have become hypersensitive to the "appearance of animosity" as you put it. We have the fourth estate to thank for the omnipresent disdain that is heaped upon all conservatives, regardless of their stripes. The news media is the real enemy here. We can't eulogize Rev. Falwell (I've seen no comments on Tuesday's post re: his passing) for fear of being seen as champions of every conservative (read: controversial) position he held in life. Where would we have been without Falwell? You might as well ask where we would have been without Reagan, because without the former we very likely wouldn't have had the latter and all the good that came about as a result. He was a great reformer, and I am grateful for his ministry even if some of it didn't appeal to me personally. Dr. Beckwith's recent conversion, to many, is seen to be a snub to the evangelical reform movement, but I don't recall reading any of your commentary on this blog that bashed the E.T.S. If you had true feelings of animosity toward Protestantism, I imagine your commentary would have been equal parts exuberance and snide mockery at the defection (and I choose that word carefully) of someone of Beckwith's caliber. There is no animosity here, nor, to the discerning eye, the appearance thereof. To suggest otherwise is to stretch credulity and supplant fact with inference.
MM - ok, fair enough, I mis-understood - I had just noticed a few recent blogs that seemed to be aimed more at what was wrong with the reformers, rather than anything else. And I understand your point in this particular blog.
I was real tempted to engage in the "sola scriptura" discussion but first, I am out gunned here and second, I am trying to stay away from theological debates, like which church is right and which church is wrong. Within certain bounds of course (i.e. things that are in direct contradiction to the Gospel of Christ). While I really like to argue - I think I just want to discuss the good things in the Anglican and Catholic churches, rather than focusing on where they are wrong.
In closing - I love this blog - I learn so much!
Thank you, MB. We are honored that you read this blog!
The question to ask ourselves is what exactly does Augustine mean in each of the quotes. Granted it seems pretty clear to me that he meant something very much like the RC understanding, but Calvin and Luther may well have read things like that and assumed that Augustine meant some sort of spiritual consuming. An eating tied to the eating of the bread and wine, but not the rpelacement of the outward sign with the more hidden reality of the body and blood of Christ.
It might also be worthwhile to ask how closely they follow Augustine and the church fathers on issues like justification, where they may have been a little closer.
Jon
Jon,
This is a good point. Luther and Calvin considered themselves to be returning to the pure teachings of Augustine regarding justification; they relied very heavily on his interpretations of Scripture on this issue, while sadly avoiding Aquinas. (It's my personal theory that if either Luther or Calvin had bothered to read Aquinas- which neither had- the Reformation simply would never have occurred. Aquinas resolves it all.)
Obviosuly the technicalities of a doctrine of the Real Presence had not yet been nailed down in Augustine's time. Still, the idea of Christ "holding His body in His hands" at the Last Supper, of Christ's being immolated on the altar, and of Christ being adored in the Eucharist, refutes the idea of the mere "spiritual" consumption that we find in Calvin.
Luther, as you know, had a much higher view of the Eucharist and held to something like the Real Presence.
Its interesting to see how these two Reformers behaved. Luther stuck with Rome on the Eucharist, while innovating entirely on justification; Calvin did the exact opposite.
Yes and no. My guess is that Calvin would respond that the spiritual reality really isn't seperable from the host, but it isn't properly spoken of as a physical reality, as if the host could bleed at the fraction.
Jon
Jon,
Aquinas and other Medieval Romans did not think that the Eucharist could be properly spoken of in such a "physical" way either.
Very true, how careful were the rank and file of Catholic theologians and the general population of the era about maintaining the distinction between the outward and visible sign and the inward and spiritual grace?
Jon
Jon, the rank and file of theologians and the general population of the era were in such awe of the real Eucharistic presence of Christ in the consecrated Host that they refused to consume it! This was a real problem in a lot of medieval parishes.
For the record, the catholic doctrine is that the outward and visible sign CONTAINS the inward and spiritual grace that it confers. The two are inseperable.
... we talked about these nuances in an earlier post: http://vocatum.blogspot.com/2007/02/whoever-eats-my-flesh-and-drinks-my.html.
Post a Comment
<< Home