Augustine on the Holy Eucharist

According to noted Protestant historian J.N.D Kelly, St. Augustine did indeed affirm that the Eucharist does in fact become the actual flesh, body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:

Noted Catholic apologists and exegete Dr. Robert A. Sungenis provides a lengthy defense of St. Augustine’s affirming the “Real Presence” of Christ in the holy Eucharist, and a thorough refutation to those that deny this:

AUGUSTINE (354 – 430) 202

Quote:

Commentary: Some have claimed that in this passage Augustine gives a symbolic, rather than literal interpretation, of the Eucharist, since he speaks of a “dwelling in Christ” and “Christ dwelling in” the person who receives the Eucharist. In the context of the passage, however, Augustine is concerned about those who receive the Eucharist under false pretenses or even in sin. For those that do, it amounts to not eating the flesh or drinking the blood, since no blessing will result, only “judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ.” In other words, Augustine believes that Christ must dwell in the person and the person must dwell in Christ for the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood to have any meaning and blessing.

This explanation does not mean, however, that Augustine believed the reality of substance in the Eucharist depended on the disposition of the recipient. In another place he writes: “…so too anyone who receives the Sacrament of the Lord unworthily does not, because he himself is wicked, cause the Sacrament to be wicked, or bring it about that he receives nothing because he does not receive it unto salvation”²⁰⁴

Quote:

Commentary: This passage is used by opponents to claim that Augustine denied the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and only believed in a spiritual presence. Such was the proposition of Protestant apologist James White in a debate on the Eucharist when challenged to provide one instance of Augustine denying the belief in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist.²⁰⁶

First, in this section of the Tractates, Augustine is not speaking directly about the Eucharist. He is speaking about the first half of John 6, the section of the chapter in which Jesus is speaking purely in symbolic terms with the Jews. Tractate 25, from which the above quote is taken, is subtitled “Chapter VI, 15-44” in NPNF, which refers to Jn 6:15-44. It is not until Jesus begins the series of verses in Jn 6:49-58 that Catholic theology enforces a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words concerning His substantial presence in the Eucharist. It is obvious by even a cursory reading of the context that Augustine is merely showing the contradiction between works and faith in the Jewish mindset; not a denial of the substantial presence in the sacrament, or that mere belief in Christ does not require one to partake of the sacrament.

On the other hand, even if we grant that in this particular section Augustine is referring to the Eucharist, we have already noted in the previous quote that Augustine is concerned with receiving the Eucharist in faith; he is not attempting to deny the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As Augustine says, those who do not believe in Christ should not “make ready their teeth and belly,” for, as he later states: “Whence the apostle saith, ‘Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself’….See ye then, brethren, that ye eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar.”²⁰⁷ Notice that when Augustine uses the word “spiritual,” it is not in the sense of symbolic, but in the sense of purity.

Quote:

Quote:

Commentary: This is one of Augustine’s more direct statements about the substantial presence. Augustine is teaching new members of the Church about the nature of the Eucharist, and thus he must explain it in very simple terms. Augustine says they “see” bread on the altar which has already been sanctified, i.e., consecrated. This refers to the appearance of bread remaining after the consecration. But Augustine insists that the bread is actually the “Body of Christ” and what is “in the cup” is actually the “Blood of Christ.” Again, we see that the Fathers have no problem in distinguishing the appearance of bread from the substance of the body of Christ. A similar statement is recorded below:

Quote:

Commentary: Augustine does what he often feels is necessary, that is, to combine the literal reality of the substantial presence with the spiritual awareness the recipient must possess when receiving. Here the spiritual awareness is heightened to the point that the recipient is included in the sacrifice of the altar, since he is a member of the Body of Christ. Augustine refers to this as an exchange of Christ’s “mystery” (the actual Body and Blood) to our “mystery” to Him (as members of His body). Augustine is not, as some have claimed by his use of “spiritual fruit,” suggesting that the Body and Blood are mere symbols of the members of the Church. We have already noted his belief that the Body and Blood were real. Augustine then explains how the members relate to that substantive change. J. N. D. Kelly writes the following concerning Augustine’s quote:

Quote:

Commentary: Augustine mentions “spiritual health,” upon which opponents claim that he did not believe in the substantial presence, since he apparently saw the sacrament only spiritually. This, however, is a distortion of Augustine’s meaning. For the Eucharist to benefit spiritually does not mean the Eucharist is symbolic. Opponents often confuse “spiritual” for “symbolic,” but no Father ever referred to the Eucharist as a mere symbol without including the reality of Christ’s presence. In fact, Augustine believed that the Eucharist could help us spiritually only because it was the actual Body and Blood of Christ, for it could not help us if it was just a symbolic piece of bread taken in commemoration.

Quote:

Commentary: Notice the distinction Augustine posits between mere belief in Christ and knowing what it means to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. This shows Augustine’s strong belief that one must be spiritually prepared in order to understand, partake and benefit from the Eucharist.²¹⁴

Quote:

Commentary: This passage should relieve all doubt as to Augustine’s belief in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The above quote is identical to the one made by the Syrian Father, Aphraates, cited earlier. Augustine insists that this be “understood literally,” not symbolically, or even “spiritually,” as was noted in the previous quote from Augustine in Sermon 272. 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 nor rationalizes its meaning, nor does he attempt to explain it, for it is a divine mystery…

Although the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, Constantinople, Chalcedon and Quinisext knew the sacrament of the Eucharist was practiced and upheld by the Church of their day, they never even remotely denied the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or in any way denied the concept that Christ could hold His body in His own hands. Surely the Councils would have reacted vociferously to a contradiction between what the early Fathers taught about the Eucharist (viz., that Christ was in heaven bodily but also in the Eucharist) and what they were dogmatizing about the Incarnation, but no such concerns exist in any of the Councils. In fact, of all the Councils and Fathers, there exists not one denial of the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Fathers, although aware of the mystery of divine ubiquity, never expressed a problem in distinguishing Christ in heaven from Christ at the altar. Speaking for the consensus of belief on this matter, John Chrysostom writes:

Lastly, an examination of the proof texts Calvin cites do not support his claim that Augustine denied 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, however, 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 (50:12-13), 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. Calvin consistently weakens or dismisses Augustine’s explicit statements affirming the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, yet exaggerates Augustine’s spiritual application of various Scriptures in an effort to find support for his dialectical understanding of the Eucharist.²²⁸

Quote:

Commentary: John Calvin attempted to dismiss this quote by claiming that Augustine

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:

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 “significations,” but realities of the transaction they label.²³¹

Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly has the same conclusion:

Calvin elaborates on his view of “signification” by comparing it to Augustine’s use of the word “figure.” Calvin writes:

We have answered the first objection above. The second proves nothing for Calvin. First, in the context of the passage (On the Psalms, 3, 1), Augustine is not discussing the Eucharist but David’s flight from his son Absalom. When Augustine discusses the Eucharist in other contexts, as we have seen above, he is very careful to specify the reality of the consecrated elements as the Body and Blood of Christ. Second, Calvin is assuming that Augustine’s use of the word “figure” can be taken only one way — as Augustine’s deliberate attempt to portray the Eucharist merely as a symbol of the Body and Blood. Calvin does so only because, in the face of all the passages in Augustine which explicitly portray the Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Christ, he is forced to find at least some references that could be interpreted in an opposite vein. One major problem, however, is that “figure” does not always refer to metaphor, but often refers to the reality of the entity it represents. For example, the sentence “George Washington is a well-known figure in American history” does not mean that George Washington was a fictitious person, rather, the use of “figure” is a literary device to emphasize his actual place in history. Similarly, the statement: “I could see the figure of the man through the window shade” does not mean that the figure was a mere representation of the man, but was an actual substance emanating from the man and which creates its appearance and existence from the man.

Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly voices the same concern as he warns against distorting the patristic intention behind the word “figure”:

Quote:

Commentary: Calvin uses this passage from Augustine as proof of the latter’s supposed symbolic understanding of the Eucharist.²³⁶ Choosing such a passage inadvertently shows Calvin’s desperation to prove his point. First, Augustine does not deny the truth that he specified so clearly in previous statements, that is, that the Eucharist is the substantial Body and Blood of Christ. In fact, as prolific a writer he was, there is no such denial in all the writings of Augustine. If Augustine felt so strongly about the belief Calvin is assigning to him, surely there would be at least one statement in which Augustine denies what the Church believes about the substantial presence.

Second, the context of Augustine’s text is not discussing the nature of the Eucharist, nor does the context refer to Augustine’s other interpretations of Jn 6:54 which show, as seen in the quotes above, that he also interprets the Johannine passage as teaching the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The context is only discussing the hermeneutic problem when one comes across a biblical statement which seems to condone a known evil. In such cases, Augustine teaches that one should search for an interpretation that is ruled by love. For example, Augustine says in the same paragraph:

In this example, Augustine shows that it is not Jesus’ intention to excuse caring for one’s body, even though He uses language that could be interpreted literally to mean such. Similarly, one could interpret literally Jesus’ command in Jn 6:54 so as to condone the crime of cannibalism. To avoid such interpretation, Augustine says: “it is therefore a figure…of a sweet and profitable memory…that His flesh was wounded.” Notice that the two interpretations Augustine sets in opposition are cannibalism and spirituality, not the sacramental consumption of the Eucharist and spirituality. Accordingly, it is quite appropriate to understand the Eucharist as a “sharing in the sufferings of our Lord” or as a “sweet memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us,” for that is precisely what the Eucharist is supposed to generate in the mind, only it does so by the substantial presence of Christ in the elements, which is the most appropriate manner in which to share His sufferings and remember His passion.

Third, in the next chapter (17, 25), Augustine says it is wrong to take a literal expression and make it figurative. He writes:

Clearly, Augustine believes that there is an equal danger of misinterpreting Scripture as symbolic when a literal meaning is intended. We suggest that this is the case with opponents of the Catholic Eucharist who, because they think they have attained, as Augustine says, “a higher grace of spiritual life,” interpret all the Eucharistic passages figuratively which, historically, have been interpreted literally.²³⁷

Quote:

Commentary: Protestant E. Svendsen writes: “Here again Augustine specifically denies that the bread of the Eucharist is the same ‘body’ as that indwelt by Christ — it is, for Augustine, clearly a symbolic body.”²³⁹ Contrary to this apologist’s conclusion, Augustine makes no explicit assertion that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, nor does he deny the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is simply a case of misconstruing Augustine’s language. The cause of such erroneous conclusions is the lack of understanding regarding Augustine’s use of “spiritual.” As we pointed out previously, since their presuppositions compel opponents to find at least some patristic evidence of their belief in a symbolic Eucharist, they seize on Augustine’s use of “spiritual” and invariably confine its meaning to “symbol.” This, however, is neither Augustine’s meaning, nor any of the other Fathers. Similar to the previous quote above in On Christian Doctrine 17, 16, Augustine is simply drawing a distinction between cannibalism and sacramentalism, not cannibalism and symbolism. He specifies that the kind of eating Jesus does not enjoin the gross imagery of cutting off one of His limbs (e.g., “…and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His body…”). Augustine then says that the recipient must spiritually discern that Jesus is referring to the Sacrament, in which His actual body will be given but not in the gross form the Jews have in mind.

To prove this, all that is necessary is to show Augustine’s belief that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the substantial presence of Christ. This we have already noted in the quote from Sermons 272:

Notice that in the opening sentence Augustine makes a strong affirmation that although there is an appearance of bread and wine, it is actually the Body and Blood of Christ. His belief is akin to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which states that the appearances of bread and wine remain but the substance is the body and blood of Christ. In the second sentence, he asserts that the unique combination of appearances and substance is a Sacrament. According to Augustine, a Sacrament occurs when “one thing is seen, but another is understood.” He does not say that what is “understood” is a symbol, for he was quite unequivocal in the previous sentence that he had in view the literal Body and Blood of Christ. In the third sentence, Augustine reiterates the same truth using different words: “corporeal species” in appearance but “spiritual fruit” in substance. Thus if we categorize Augustine’s description of the Sacrament we note the following:

What is the Sacrament of the Eucharist?

Notice that Augustine’s understanding of “spiritual fruit” is not equal to the symbolic, but with the actual “Body and Blood.” In the same way, the word “spiritual” is being used in the sense of “divine,” not in the sense of “symbol.”

Augustine’s view is also confirmed by his description of other Sacraments. In Letters 98, 2 (the same Letter quoted above in which Augustine spoke of the “Sacrament” of the Eucharist), he says the following about Baptism:

It is obvious that Augustine has a profound regard for the power of Sacrament. He states that “both” the water and the Spirit regenerate. The water brings the grace and the Spirit applies the grace. Hence when Augustine says that such things must be “spiritually understood,” he is not implying that the Sacrament is a mere symbol, rather, he is referring to understanding the nature of a sacrament, that is, what appears to be just a physical manifestation is actually a divine presence that performs a specific action—the action symbolized in the sacrament. In other words, in the ceremony of Baptism (i.e., the pouring of water on the person), we have the signs of a cleansing process, but the cleansing we observe is a sign of an invisible but actual cleansing of the soul performed by the invisible Spirit of God.²⁴⁰

Quote:

Quote:

Commentary: Here we have a clear reference from Augustine regarding the sacrifice of the Mass, as well as those departed saints who are remembered and for whom the Mass-sacrifice is offered [viz., for the souls in Purgatory].

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

²⁰² Although opinions of Augustine’s views on the Eucharist are wide and varied, J. N. D. 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 which 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 predecessors” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 446-447). As for the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, Kelly notes: “Western writers before Augustine have little to contribute to the theory of the eucharistic sacrifice, although all of them naturally take if for granted” (ibid., p. 453). Accordingly, James O’Connor states that if Augustine’s views of the Eucharist are interpreted as merely symbolic, they would be “at variance with those of St. Ambrose, from whom Augustine himself had received his catechesis on the Eucharist prior to his baptism. There is nothing, however, in his own writings or those of his contemporaries or in the age immediately following his death that indicates that anyone perceived any difference between the teaching of these two men” (The Hidden Manna, p. 53). Jaroslav Pelikan adds: “…the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist…did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the Fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile” (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, v. 1, pp. 166-167). Although an opponent of the Catholic Eucharist, Protestant William Webster admits: “From the beginning of the Church the Fathers generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist, in that they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ, and also referred to the eucharist as a sacrifice…” (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, p. 117). In this statement, Webster admits that the preponderant evidence from the Fathers supports the Catholic position. Webster is then forced to make his case against Catholic patristics under the following category: “…but there was considerable difference of opinion among the Fathers on the precise nature of these things, reflected in the fact that the ancient Church produced no official dogma of the Lord’s Supper” (ibid). Ironically, in contradistinction to his prior admission, Webster concludes in his remaining pages that the supposed “considerable difference of opinion among the Fathers” is sufficient to categorize both the doctrine of the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass as aberrant and heretical Christian doctrine. Thus it is to this “considerable difference of opinion” which we will direct our critique in the following pages.

²⁰³ On the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI, 18; NPNF I, v. 7, p. 173.

²⁰⁴ On Baptism, PL 5, 8, 9; JR, v. 3, 1633.

²⁰⁵ On the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, 12, NPNF I, v. 7, p. 164.

²⁰⁶ New York, May 6, 1999. For copies of the debate, order from Catholic Apologetics International at website http://www.catholicintl.com.

²⁰⁷ Tractate 26, 11, NPNF I, v. 7, p. 171.

²⁰⁸ On the Psalms, 98, 9; NPNF I, v. 8, p. 485; JR 1479a.

²⁰⁹ Sermons, 227, 21; JR, v. 3, 1519.

²¹⁰ Sermons, 272; JR, v. 3, 1524.

²¹¹ Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 447-448.

²¹² On the Trinity 3, 4, 10; NPNF I, v. 3, p. 59; JR 1652.

²¹³ On the Gospel of John, Tractate XI, 3; NPNF I, v. 7, p. 75.

²¹⁴ Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott writes: “The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as ‘the sign of unity’ (St. Augustine); this in no wise excludes the Real Presence” (FCD, p. 378). In another vein, Ott writes: “(a) As the self-sacrifice of Christ, the sacrifice of the Mass works ex opere operato, that is, independently of the moral worthiness of the celebrating priest and of the co-sacrificing faithful. The Council of Trent declared: ‘This is that clean oblation, which no unworthiness or turpitude of those who offer it can stain.’ (b) As a sacrifice of the Church the sacrifice of the Mass works quasi ex opere operato, because the Church, as the Holy and immaculate Bride of Christ is always pleasing to God. (c) As a sacrifice of the celebrating priest and of the co-sacrificing faithful the sacrifice of the Mass, like every good work, works ex opere operantis corresponding to the intensity of their personal moral disposition. ST, III, 82, 6 (FCD, p. 413). Ott also writes: “The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional, in the case of the living, to the degree of perfection of their disposition” (ibid., p. 414). And again: “As a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the Mass possesses a finite external value, since the operations of propitiation and impetration refer to human beings, who as creatures can receive a finite act only. This explains the practice of the Church of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass frequently for the same intention….As each participant receives a finite sacrificial fruit only, corresponding to his disposition, the infinite plentitude of blessings of Christ’s Sacrifice cannot be exhausted….As the Sacrifice of the Mass does not work mechanically any more than the Sacraments, the receiving of the fruits of the Sacrifice demands certain due moral dispositions, and the measure of the fruits received is dependent on the quality of these dispositions” (ibid., pp. 414-415).

²¹⁵ On the Psalms, 33, 1, 10; JR 1464; NPNF I, v. 8, p. 73…

²²⁰ Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews, PG 63, 17, 3; JR 1222. Ludwig Ott writes: “The mode of being of the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is the mode of being of a created spirit. For example, it is similar to that of the soul in the body. But while the created spirit is limited to a single space (definite presence), for example, the soul to one single body, Christ’s Body is at one and the same time, present in many places. Thus He is in His natural mode of being in Heaven, and in His sacramental mode of existence in many places, cf., ST, III, 76, 5 ad 1….The multilocation of the Body of Christ is not a circumscriptive one [a limited one]. Christ’s Body is present in its external extension (circumscriptive) in one place only, namely in Heaven. In its sacramental state however it has multipresence in so far as it is present in many places, in a sacramental manner, at one and the same time, without external extension. The multipresence is a mixed one, in so far as the Body is present with external extension in Heaven and without external extension in many places in the Sacrament.” By multilocation the body as such is not multiplied since numerically the body remains one and the same. The multiplication is of the body’s relation to space, that is, its presence. This resolves the objection that contradictions are asserted of the Body of Christ, for example, that it is simultaneously at rest and in movement or is near to and far from the same place, or is remote from itself. An intrinsic contradiction would only exist if in the same direction opposites were asserted. In point of fact, however, the opposites of the Body of Christ are in virtue of His different relations with space, namely that He is at the same time present in different modes, in several places” (FCD, pp. 389-390)…

²²⁸ A similar attempt is made by W. Webster who claims Augustine held that “Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there till he comes again…Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith… that of Augustine for he did not view Christ as being physically present in the sacrament, nor the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin” (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, p. 121, second ellipsis, p. 123). Our critique has been levied against such one-sided views so as to alert the reader that Augustine spoke just as much concerning the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist as he did of the sign or symbol of that presence, one being synonymous with the other.

²²⁹ Letters 98, 9; JR 1424; NPNF I, v. 1, p. 410.

²³⁰ INT, 4:17:28.

²³¹ Calvin also references City of God (xxii, 7); The Gospel of John (xiii, 11; l, 12,13; xcii 1) and other passages claiming that Augustine did not believe that Christ could be in one place and another at the same time, but the passages do not prove Calvin’s contention. For example, in the Gospel of John xiii, 11, Augustine says only that Christ sits in heaven, not that it is impossible for Christ to appear sacramentally on earth. In Gospel of John l, 12, 13, Augustine says only that Christ is not on earth in his normal bodily form, not that he cannot appear sacramentally on earth. In fact, in no passage does Augustine say that his teaching on the unilocal presence of Christ refers to or denies, in any way, His sacramental presence. In Gospel of John xcii, 1, Augustine says only that Christ’s presence was taken from us at his Ascension, not that Christ cannot appear sacramentally after the Ascension.

²³² Early Christian Doctrines, p. 448.

²³³ INT 4:17: 21.

²³⁴ Early Christian Doctrines, p. 212. See the entire quote from J. N. D. Kelly in our notes on Tertullian.

²³⁵ On Christian Doctrine, 17, 16, NPNF I, v. 1, p. 563.

²³⁶ INT 4:17:6.

²³⁷ John Calvin’s unending struggle between symbol and reality is evident in these somewhat confusing descriptions of the Eucharist: “I indeed admit that the breaking of bread is a symbol; it is not the thing itself. But having admitted this, we shall nevertheless duly infer that by the showing of the symbol the thing itself is also shown. For unless a man means to call God a deceiver, he would never dare assert that an empty symbol is set forth by him. Therefore, if the Lord truly represents the participation in his body through the breaking of bread, there ought not to be the least doubt that he truly presents and shows his body. And the godly ought by all means to keep this rule: whenever they see symbols appointed by the Lord, to think and be persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is surely present there. For why would the Lord put in your hand the symbol of his body, except to assure you of a true participation in it? But if it is true that a visible sign is given us to seal the gift of a thing invisible, when we have received the symbol of the body, let us no less surely trust that the body itself is also given to us” (INT 4:17:10, emphasis added). “But when these absurdities have been set aside, I freely accept whatever can be made to express the true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord, which is shown to believers under the sacred symbols of the Supper, and so to express it that they may be understood not to receive it solely by imagination or understanding of mind, but to enjoy the thing itself as nourishment of eternal life” (INT 4:17:19, emphasis added). “But denial will gain them nothing, since all men agree that the whole Christ is offered us in the Supper” (INT 4:17:20, emphasis added). “We say Christ descends to us both by the outward symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and of his blood. He who does not perceive that many miracles are subsumed in these few words is more than stupid…There is nothing more incredible than that things severed and removed from one another by the whole space between heaven and earth should not only be connected across such a great distance but also be united, so that souls may receive nourishment from Christ’s flesh” (INT 4:17:24, emphasis added). Obviously, Calvin did not want to accept the Eucharist as a mere symbol, which was the Zwinglian view he opposed, but he did not know quite how to distance himself from the Catholic view, except to refer to Christ’s presence as “spiritual,” yet using some of the same terminology as his Catholic opponents. As noted earlier, Calvin’s chief objection to the Catholic Eucharist is the concept of Transubstantiation, specifically the annihilation of the substance of bread and wine (INT 4:17:14-18), but how it could happen otherwise he does not explain. William Crockett shows how Calvin’s view becomes somewhat convoluted: “Calvin, however, not only speaks of the ‘substance’ or ‘reality’ of Christ’s body, but like Augustine, he also speaks of the ‘virtue’ of ‘power’ of Christ’s body and, to confuse matters, he sometimes identifies the ‘power’ of Christ’s body with the ‘substance’ of Christ’s body. This has sown confusion among his interpreters. The difficulty lies in the fact that Calvin uses the term ‘substance’ in three different ways in his writings and doesn’t always make clear which meaning he intends” (Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation, pp. 156-157). Calvinistic apologists appeal to the same “spiritual” conception of the Eucharist. For example, E. Svendsen writes: “Yes, they did believe in a ‘real’ presence—but then so do most Evangelicals believe in a ‘real’ presence. That is not what is at issue. The question is, Is the ‘real’ presence a physical or a spiritual presence?” (Evangelical Answers, p. 251). He then tries to bolster this point by referring to Jesus’ remark in Jn 4:23: “…the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” and accuses Catholics of “…equating ‘spiritual’ with that which is not ‘real.’ Yet, Jesus makes the exact opposite point—the true (‘real’) worshipers are those who worship in spirit, not in material” (ibid., p. 252). The apologist has made two errors: First, he misconstrues what Jesus means by “spirit and truth,” claiming that it refers to Jesus’ wish to eliminate “material” substance from worship. Svendsen fails to see that with the addition of the word “truth” to the formula, Jesus shows that “spirit and truth” refers to sincere, inner devotion to God who cannot be seen with the eye, as opposed to the Jews who practice mechanical rituals without true piety. The context clearly supports this view (Jn 4:20). Thus Jesus is not setting in opposition the spiritual world from the material world but mindless ritual from meaningful worship. Second, we do not argue against God’s presence “spiritually,” for if He is omnipresent, then He is not only present everywhere in the universe, but in some sense, He is even present in the Eucharist “spiritually.” However, Svendsen never explains the distinction between God’s spiritual omnipresence and what he envisions as the “spiritual” presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For example, how much more present can God be “spiritually” in the Eucharist than He is on Mars, if indeed, as the apologist reminds us, “God is a Spirit”? God, being omnipresent, cannot be in one place more “spiritually” than another. The time and manner in which God creates a difference, however, become evident by the physical manifestation with which He accompanies them, as, for example, the Shekinah glory cloud that descended to the earth, or the Holy Spirit’s formation of tongues of fire on the heads of the Apostles (cf. Nm 16:42; Ac 2:1-4). Therefore, Svendsen cannot digress the issue to one of “spiritual” presence. The question is: does God, at certain times, break through His spiritual omnipresence and manifest Himself materially? If and when He does, we can still worship Him in “spirit and truth.”

²³⁸ On the Psalms, PL 98, 9; NPNF I, v. 8, p. 485-486; JR, 1480.

²³⁹ Evangelical Answers, p. 250.

²⁴⁰ As E. Masure has stated: “The Mass is not only the offering of Calvary’s immolation: it is the sign, in the Augustinian sense…His religion and our redemption, incarnate in His body, had already all the reality of sacrifice, that is oblation, immolation and acceptance by the Father; but they had no liturgical sign. Jesus gives them one….The only way of putting a liturgical reality and a liturgical action one inside the other, making a single sacrifice of the two combined, is to place the victim with all the effects of the sacrifice beneath a sign. This is what Christ willed and instituted that Thursday evening….the Mass is a sacrifice because it is the efficacious sign of the Cross’s sacrifice. Since the latter is to-day invisible, we may even use the old formula of S. Augustine: Missa est sacrificii jam invisibilis visible sacramentum, id est sacrum signum.” (The Christian Sacrifice, pp. 239-240). As A. Vonier observes: “…if a man admits sacraments at all, there is no more reason for him to reject the sacrament-sacrifice than to reject the sacrament-regeneration, i.e., Baptism. In both we have nothing else than a representation—in the technical sense of the word—of Christ’s death and its application to the individual soul” (The Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, p. 140).

²⁴¹ Second Discourse on Psalm 32. Ch. 4.

²⁴² Sermons PL, 38, 172, 2; JR, v. 3, 1516.

²⁴³ The City of God, PL 41, 10, 5; NPNF I, v. 2, p.183.

²⁴⁴ The City of God, PL 41, 10, 20; NPNF I, v. 2, p. 193; JR 1744.

²⁴⁵ Questions on the Heptateuch, PL 34, 3, 57; JR, v. 3, 1866.

²⁴⁶ Sermons, PL, 234, 2; JR, v. 3, 1520.

²⁴⁷ Against Faustus the Manichean, PL 42, 20, 21; NPNF I, v. 4, p. 262; JR, v. 3, 1604.

²⁴⁸ Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love, PL 40, 29, 109; JR, v. 3, 1930.

²⁴⁹ Sermon Against the Jews, PL 42, 9, 13; JR, v. 3, 1977. (Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., Second Edition 2009], Part III: The Witness of the Early Fathers, pp. 176-183, 186, 188-200; emphasis mine)

Further Reading

St. Cyril on the Eucharist & Intercession

IGNATIUS ON THE EUCHARIST

THE EUCHARIST AS THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST PT. 1, PT. 2

JEWISH PRECURSORS TO THE TRINITY, EUCHARIST & MARY