Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
4) Actually it was in the 9th century that we find the earliest attempt at regulating the "fluctuating" opinions regarding transsubstatiation, by one Ratramnus. He was immediately opposed by Radbertus and others. According to Cunningham, "all the most respected theologians of the day adhered to the more reasonable view." So, as soon as someone takes in hand to systematize and regulate this view, he is directly contradicted. It takes 800 years to get to this point. Claiming that all was harmony prior to this point is gratuitous.Just because transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined until the 12th century does not mean that the basic principles of it were not believed before then. In fact all the post-nicene Fathers believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and bl**d so that the elements only appear to be bread and wine after consecration.
This closing paragraph is anachronistic. Of course Augustin was "catholic". He was bishop of Carthage in an era that knew only one church, from Gibraltar to Britain to Syria to Ethiopia--the universal one, and one I might add where there was no universal allegiance to Rome or any other primate, even if Augustin deferred to him. So much for the "papist" slap.Augustine was thoroughly Catholic and shows no signs of a Reformed Protestant. How in the world can he be in heaven? I must conclude that he is condemned in hell with all the other papists. He believed in none of the Reformed distinctives.
Originally posted by Dean
Augustine was thoroughly Catholic and shows no signs of a Reformed Protestant. How in the world can he be in heaven? I must conclude that he is condemned in hell with all the other papists. He believed in none of the Reformed distinctives.
Dean
[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Dean]
Originally posted by Dean
hourse,
Original sin, total depravity, predestination of the saints are NOT Reformed distinctives. These doctrines have been held (in their Augustinian form) by theologians of the Dominican and Augustinian orders in the Catholic Church for thousands of years.
Dean
Originally posted by webmaster
One cannot remain under the mass with knowledge of its intent. Its devil worship and blasphemy against Christ's work.
There is so much of what you posted needs to be addressed. Most of the Augustine quotes look like something right off a Roman apologist's web site. For instance, the reference for one quote as "Letters" is vague--> "In the sacrament 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. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters).Just because transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined until the 12th century does not mean that the basic principles of it were not believed before then. In fact all the post-nicene Fathers believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and bl**d so that the elements only appear to be bread and wine after consecration.
No, all of the post-nicene Fathers did not believe that. In fact, Gelasius, a Bishop of Rome (492-496), no less, explicitly denied that...You wrote: Just because transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined until the 12th century does not mean that the basic principles of it were not believed before then. In fact all the post-nicene Fathers believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and bl**d so that the elements only appear to be bread and wine after consecration.
The Jesuit scholar Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (a Romanist notice) observed this himself: "According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration." Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx); and Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997).
Latin text: Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).
Sweeping statements don't make for credible reporting. How many of these post-nicene fathers have you actually read?Jerome (347-420) on Psalm 147: We read the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Gospel is the body of Christ. I believe the Holy Scriptures to be his doctrine, and when he says, He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood, although this may be understood of the mystery, yet the word of the Scriptures and the divine doctrine is more truly the body of Christ and his blood. If at any time we go to the mystery, whoever is faithful understands that if he falls into sin he is in danger; so if at any time we hear the word of God, and the word of God, and the flesh of Christ, and his blood poured into our ears, and we are thinking of something else, how great is the danger we incur. See George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
Latin text: Legimus sanctas Scripturas. Ego corpus Jesu, Evangelium puto: sanctas Scripturas, puto doctrinam ejus. Et quando dicit, qui non comederit carnem meam, et biberit sanguinem meum: licet et in mysterio possit intelligi: tamen verius corpus Christi, et sanguis ejus, sermo Scripturarum est, doctrina divina est. Si quando imus ad mysterium, qui fidelis est, intelligit, si in maculam ceciderit, periclitatur. Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et sermo Dei, et caro Christi, et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud cogitamus, in quantum periculum incurrimus! Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXLVII, PL 26:1258-1259.
Jerome (347-420): Moreover, forasmuch as the flesh of the Lord is true meat, and his blood is true drink anagogically, we have only this good in this life, if we eat his flesh and drink his blood not only in the mystery, but also in the reading of the Scriptures. George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
Latin text: Porro, quia caro Domini versus est cibus, et sanguis ejus versus est potus, juxta anagogen (Gk), hoc solum habemus in praesenti saeculo bonum, si vescamur carne ejus cruoreque potemur, non solum in mysterio (Eucharistia), sed etiam in Scripturarum lectione. Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, Cap. 3, PL 23:1039.
On another occasion, when Augustine is asking how we may lay hold of Christ, you would expect him to affirm that that may be done so in the celebration of the eucharist, i.e., if he believed in transubstantiation. But notice, he repudiates the notion that the absent Christ is ascertained by any other means than faith...SERMON 272
ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO THE INFANTES, ON THE SACRAMENT
Date: 408
One thing is seen, another is to be understood
What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard. So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that's what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ. It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction. The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9). I mean, you can now say to me, “You've bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand.”
Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody's mind: “We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man's estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. That's where he lifted his body up to; that's where he's going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that's where he is now, seated on the Father's right. 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.
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 exorcised, 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.
Turning to the Lord, God the Father almighty, with pure hearts let us give him sincere and abundant thanks, as much as we can in our littleness; beseeching him in his singular kindness with our whole soul, graciously to hearken to our prayers in his good pleasure; also by his power to drive out the enemy from our actions and thoughts, to increase our faith, to guide our minds, to grant us spiritual thoughts, and to lead us finally to his bliss; through Jesus Christ his Son. Amen.
Moreover, elsewhere in his Tractates on John, he denies explicitly the notion of a corporeal feeding on Christ in the eucharist when he states...Augustine (354-430): Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11, §4.
And again in his commentary on the Psalms...Augustine (354-430): “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. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
You can't simply assume that when Augustine describes the bread as Christ's body and the cup as Christ's blood, that he means thereby a corporeal presence. He's only affirming the words of Holy Scripture; and then in exposition, explaining the spiritual significance of them.Augustine (354-430): It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98), §8.