Quote of Augustine"And he was carried in his own hands. But, brethren how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this 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." On the Psalms, 33, 1, 10; JR 1464; NPNF I, v.8, p.73
This passage should relieve all doubt as to Augustine's belief in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Augustine insists that this be "understood literally" not symbolically, or even "spiritually". Augustine is specifying, unequivocally and unambiguously, that at the Last Supper consecration, Jesus literally held His own body in His own hands. Augustine neither dilutes or rationalizes its meaning, nor does he attempt to explain it, for it is a divine mystery.
In light of Augustine's beliefs, one of the main objections of the Protestant reformer John Calvin, was that the Fathers did not hold to a concept of transubstantiation, as would later be defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Calvin's objection centered around his claim that the Fathers did not specify the annihilation of the substance of bread and wine. He writes:
"Indeed, I admit that some of the old writers used the term "conversion" sometimes, not because they intended to wipe out the substance in the outward sign, but to teach that the bread dedicated to the mystery is far different from common bread, and is now something else... For because they say that in consecration a secret conversion takes place, so there is now something other than bread and wine, as I have just observed, they do not mean by this that the elements have been annihilated, but rather that they now have to be considered of a different class from common foods intended solely to feed the stomach, since in them is set forth the spiritual food and drink of the soul. This we do not deny."
There are several problems with Calvin's view. First, altho thruout his writings Calvin denies the concept of annihilation, he never explains how his own view(i.e., that in the Eucharist "there is something other than bread and wine) can be substantiated. Calvin's only explanation is that the substance is "different" than it was previously. Moreover, Calvin offers no Scriptural examples of the kind of "difference" he proposes. Second, as Calvin himself admits, the Fathers come very close to using terminology which equals that of transubsantiation. Altho the Fathers do not given the full-blown doctrine appearing a millennia later at the Fourth Lateran council, nevertheless, the Fathers understood that a real conversion takes place in the Eucharist; and that the Eucharist was not merely a symbol of Christ's body and blood but the very reality they represented. Each Father distinguished between the unconsecrated bread and wine and the consecrated body and blood. Rather than attempt to explain how this seemingly impossible transformation occurred, the Fathers often conceded its workings to "mystery" as did Augustine, and left the formulation of the precise theological terminology to those of latter generations. As one his main arguments, Calvin insists that there can be no miraculous change since, according to him, Christ cannot be in 2 places at the same time, for after His resurrection He was immediately confined to His physical body. INT 17:29-329
Lastly, an examination of the proof texts Calvin cites do not support his claim that Augustine dendied the substantial presence. For example, Calvin cites Augustine in Epistles on the Gospel of John, 13:11; 50:12,13; 92:1. In none of these, does Augustine exhibit a denial that because Christ is in heaven then He cannot be in the Eucharist. In the first, 13:11, Augustine says only that Christ sits in heaven; in the second, 50:12, that Christ is not on earth in the same form He was previous to His Ascension; and in the third, 92:1, that Christ was no longer present in bodily form when he ascended. These are just a sample of Calvin's many attempts to exploit ambiguities in Augustine's statements to make it seem as if Augustine denied Christ's substantial presence in the Eucharist.
Quote: "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice?... For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things which they the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the name of the realities whch 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."Letters 98, 9; JR 1424; NPNF I, v.1, 410.
John Calvin attempted to dismiss the quote above by claiming that Augustine "explains himself, saying that the sacraments take their names from their likeness to they things they signify; consequently, in a certain sense the sacrament of the body is the body. Another quite familiar passage of Augustine agrees with this: 'The Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body', when he gave the sign. INT, 4:17;28
Calvin claims that Augustine calls it the Body merely because it signifies the Body, not because it is the Body of Christ. Yet,Calvin fails to quote the end of the paragraph. There Augustine explains what he means by the "signification" of the sacraments. He writes:
"Thus the Apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: 'We are buried with Christ by baptism unto death.' 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.
Thus, Augustine's view is that sacraments are named with the actual name of the action or substance they represent, precisely because they are not mere "signfications", but realities of the transaction they label.
Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly has the same conclusion: "It is true also that he [Augustine] occasionally used language which, taken by itself, might suggest that he regarded the bread and wine as mere symbols of the body and blood. Thus, when the African bishop Boniface inquired how baptized children can be said to have faith, Augustine's reply [Ltrs, 98,9] was to the effect that baptism itself was called faith, and that current usage allowed one to designate the sign by the name of the thing signified. Early Christian Doctrines, p.448
Calvin compares "signification" to Augustine's use of the word "figure". Calvin assumes Augustine's use of "figure" can be taken only one way--as a way to explicitly portray the Eucharist merely as a symbol of the Body and Blood. Calvin claims this in the face of all the passages in Augustine which explicitly portray the Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Christ.
One big problem Calvin faces is that "figure" does not always refer to metaphor, but often refers to the reality of the entity it represents. E.g., the sentence "George Washington is a well-know figure in American history" does not mean the GW was a fictitious person, rather, the use of "figure" is a literary device to emphasize his actual place in history.
Protestant historian, JND Kelly, voices the same concern as he warns against distorting the patristic intention behind the word "figure":
"Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that for all its realisst sound, their use of the terms "body" and "blood" may after all be merely symbolic. tertuallian, for example, refers to the bread as a "figure" of Christ's body, and one speaks of "the bread by whcih he represents His very body". Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterioous relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized." Early Christian Doctrines, p.212
In conclusion, altho opinions of Augustine's views on the Eucharist may vary, JND Kelly provides an accurate and balanced assessment of his teaching. Kelly writes:
"There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism." After listing a few quotes whch confirm Augustine's belief in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Kelly continues: "One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecssors." Early Christian Doctrine, pp. 446-447.
This passage should relieve all doubt as to Augustine's belief in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Augustine insists that this be "understood literally" not symbolically, or even "spiritually". Augustine is specifying, unequivocally and unambiguously, that at the Last Supper consecration, Jesus literally held His own body in His own hands. Augustine neither dilutes or rationalizes its meaning, nor does he attempt to explain it, for it is a divine mystery.
In light of Augustine's beliefs, one of the main objections of the Protestant reformer John Calvin, was that the Fathers did not hold to a concept of transubstantiation, as would later be defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Calvin's objection centered around his claim that the Fathers did not specify the annihilation of the substance of bread and wine. He writes:
"Indeed, I admit that some of the old writers used the term "conversion" sometimes, not because they intended to wipe out the substance in the outward sign, but to teach that the bread dedicated to the mystery is far different from common bread, and is now something else... For because they say that in consecration a secret conversion takes place, so there is now something other than bread and wine, as I have just observed, they do not mean by this that the elements have been annihilated, but rather that they now have to be considered of a different class from common foods intended solely to feed the stomach, since in them is set forth the spiritual food and drink of the soul. This we do not deny."
There are several problems with Calvin's view. First, altho thruout his writings Calvin denies the concept of annihilation, he never explains how his own view(i.e., that in the Eucharist "there is something other than bread and wine) can be substantiated. Calvin's only explanation is that the substance is "different" than it was previously. Moreover, Calvin offers no Scriptural examples of the kind of "difference" he proposes. Second, as Calvin himself admits, the Fathers come very close to using terminology which equals that of transubsantiation. Altho the Fathers do not given the full-blown doctrine appearing a millennia later at the Fourth Lateran council, nevertheless, the Fathers understood that a real conversion takes place in the Eucharist; and that the Eucharist was not merely a symbol of Christ's body and blood but the very reality they represented. Each Father distinguished between the unconsecrated bread and wine and the consecrated body and blood. Rather than attempt to explain how this seemingly impossible transformation occurred, the Fathers often conceded its workings to "mystery" as did Augustine, and left the formulation of the precise theological terminology to those of latter generations. As one his main arguments, Calvin insists that there can be no miraculous change since, according to him, Christ cannot be in 2 places at the same time, for after His resurrection He was immediately confined to His physical body. INT 17:29-329
Lastly, an examination of the proof texts Calvin cites do not support his claim that Augustine dendied the substantial presence. For example, Calvin cites Augustine in Epistles on the Gospel of John, 13:11; 50:12,13; 92:1. In none of these, does Augustine exhibit a denial that because Christ is in heaven then He cannot be in the Eucharist. In the first, 13:11, Augustine says only that Christ sits in heaven; in the second, 50:12, that Christ is not on earth in the same form He was previous to His Ascension; and in the third, 92:1, that Christ was no longer present in bodily form when he ascended. These are just a sample of Calvin's many attempts to exploit ambiguities in Augustine's statements to make it seem as if Augustine denied Christ's substantial presence in the Eucharist.
Quote: "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice?... For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things which they the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the name of the realities whch 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."Letters 98, 9; JR 1424; NPNF I, v.1, 410.
John Calvin attempted to dismiss the quote above by claiming that Augustine "explains himself, saying that the sacraments take their names from their likeness to they things they signify; consequently, in a certain sense the sacrament of the body is the body. Another quite familiar passage of Augustine agrees with this: 'The Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body', when he gave the sign. INT, 4:17;28
Calvin claims that Augustine calls it the Body merely because it signifies the Body, not because it is the Body of Christ. Yet,Calvin fails to quote the end of the paragraph. There Augustine explains what he means by the "signification" of the sacraments. He writes:
"Thus the Apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: 'We are buried with Christ by baptism unto death.' 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.
Thus, Augustine's view is that sacraments are named with the actual name of the action or substance they represent, precisely because they are not mere "signfications", but realities of the transaction they label.
Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly has the same conclusion: "It is true also that he [Augustine] occasionally used language which, taken by itself, might suggest that he regarded the bread and wine as mere symbols of the body and blood. Thus, when the African bishop Boniface inquired how baptized children can be said to have faith, Augustine's reply [Ltrs, 98,9] was to the effect that baptism itself was called faith, and that current usage allowed one to designate the sign by the name of the thing signified. Early Christian Doctrines, p.448
Calvin compares "signification" to Augustine's use of the word "figure". Calvin assumes Augustine's use of "figure" can be taken only one way--as a way to explicitly portray the Eucharist merely as a symbol of the Body and Blood. Calvin claims this in the face of all the passages in Augustine which explicitly portray the Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Christ.
One big problem Calvin faces is that "figure" does not always refer to metaphor, but often refers to the reality of the entity it represents. E.g., the sentence "George Washington is a well-know figure in American history" does not mean the GW was a fictitious person, rather, the use of "figure" is a literary device to emphasize his actual place in history.
Protestant historian, JND Kelly, voices the same concern as he warns against distorting the patristic intention behind the word "figure":
"Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that for all its realisst sound, their use of the terms "body" and "blood" may after all be merely symbolic. tertuallian, for example, refers to the bread as a "figure" of Christ's body, and one speaks of "the bread by whcih he represents His very body". Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterioous relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized." Early Christian Doctrines, p.212
In conclusion, altho opinions of Augustine's views on the Eucharist may vary, JND Kelly provides an accurate and balanced assessment of his teaching. Kelly writes:
"There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism." After listing a few quotes whch confirm Augustine's belief in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Kelly continues: "One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecssors." Early Christian Doctrine, pp. 446-447.
