Posted on 08/06/2008 5:57:39 AM PDT by NYer
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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.... What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227).
"What you see is the bread and the chalice." What about the consistency application of the supposed grammatical rule pertaining to the word, "is"?
Augustine says, "And hence, he who remains not in Christ, and in whom Christ remains not, without doubt neither spiritually eats his flesh, nor drinks his blood, though with his teeth he may carnally and visibly press the symbol of his body and blood."
Cyril does the same:
"With perfect confidence, then we partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ. For in the figure of bread His Body is given to you, and in the figure of wine His Blood, that by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ you may become one body and blood with him."To him, after the consecration there remains the figure of bread. I think you do not agree with either one of them.
Cordially,
You can say that the use of the term "transubstantiation" is anachronistically applied to Augustine. In a sense, this is true, since he himself never used the word. But it is not so much the anachronism you imagine. The concept is there in his phrasing, even if the doctrinal development needed to come up with the word "transubstantiation" would take many more years to come to light. Theologians of every denomination, even yours, I dare say, would be out of business if there were no such thing as doctrinal development. To me, making a fuss out of the word "transubstantiation" as a concept Augustine would use is something of a straw man. He knew the idea, even if he did not know the phraseology. To me, also, the passage you furnish does, on its own terms, say the same thing Catholics would say today.
It does no good, in the end, to argue about appearances when talking about the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Appearances are readily conceded. The "reality" of the situation, however, from the Catholic POV, can only be discerned by faith. It might not look like the Body and Blood of Christ, but it is, nonetheless.
Finally, another way to look at Augustine's quote is to consider it a kind of shorthand to keep things simple for those who already understand the actualities of the situation. That he continues to refer to the Eucharist as "bread and wine" means nothing. In fact, even today, Eucharistic Prayers 1 (the Roman Canon), 2 and 4 all refer to the Eucharist, already consecrated, as "bread" and "wine." It's just shorthand, to avoid long-winded, theologically precise formulas when everyone present is presumed to know what is on the altar. Check out the link to see what I mean: http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/22/Start/9
Last paragraph: “wine” should be “cup.” But the principle remains, as “bread” is used in each instance.
Perhaps. Fanatics, however, are stubborn, and none more stubborn than liberal priests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.