Greetings:
No, I don’t think the Fathers reject it, it is a term that was developed many years later to explain why Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It wasn’t unitl the Council of Nicea in 325 that Homoousious was used, but once the theological term was explained to those Fathers that came well before Nicea, They would have said, OK, that is a theological term that does in an orthodox fashion describe Christ being of the same substance as God the Father, not a different one, etc.
And months ago, you and I went over the Eucharist and its meaning. I am not going to get into that here, as you and I have already been down that road. And Augustine’s Tractate 25 does not reject the Eucharist or real presence.
They would have said, OK, that is a theological term that does in an orthodox fashion describe Christ being of the same substance as God the Father, not a different one, etc.
Compare Augustine with the "orthodox" reading. Augustine again, first, just to rub it into your soul:
The body and blood of Christ consumed through faith without eating or drinking. Believe, saith Augustine, and thou hast eaten already.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
Compare with Father John Bartunek, LC., whose interpretation requires the actual use of “teeth and stomach”:
“This was the perfect opportunity for Christ to say, “Wait a minute, what I really meant was that my body and blood will just be symbolized by bread and wine. Of course I didn’t mean that bread and wine really would become my body and blood. Don’t be foolish!” The strange thing is he doesn’t say that. He does not water down his claim, as if eating his flesh were just a metaphor for believing in his doctrine; on the contrary, he reiterates the importance of really eating his flesh and drinking his blood.”
Is the priest correct and in line with the orthodox understanding of Transubstantiation, or is Augustine?