Follow usTwitterFacebook

Latest

26 Sep 2016 News Comments (1)

Vatican issues new rules for medical panel that judges miracles

Medical experts will no longer be paid in cash and a two-thirds majority will be required to approve miracles In an effort to ensure transparency as well as hi…

Read more

01 Nov 2014 Articles No comments

Ossuary of James - II: Bad Aramaic Made Easy

Written By Jimmy Akin In 2002 a unique archaeological find was announced: a limestone ossuary (bone box) that may have held the remains of James the “brother” …

Read more

12 Sep 2015 Europe News No comments

Cardinal Marx: Pope's annulment reforms don't go far enough

The president of the German bishops' conference has said that the reform introduced in the annulment process by Pope Francis this week "does not solve the funda…

Read more

03 Nov 2014 Q&A Comments (1)

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external …

Read more

07 Sep 2016 Uncategorized No comments

‘God’s mercy is for all,’ Pope tells general audience

Pope Francis tells pilgrims not to put limits on the scope of Christ's mercy God did not send his son into the world to cast off the wicked but to offer them a…

Read more

23 Jul 2016 Articles Comments (2)

Why the Crusaders Went

This post is the third in a series about the most prevalent modern myths about the Crusades and how to refute them. Anna Comnena was the thirteen-year-old da…

Read more

02 Sep 2015 News Vatican No comments

Pope's prayer intentions for September 2015

The Vatican has released the prayer intentions of Pope Francis for September 2015. The Pope’s universal intention is: “That opportunities for education and e…

Read more

03 Apr 2015 Q&A No comments

Is it proper to ask publicly for the prayers of a deceased person who is not beatified?

Full Question At a local Catholic school in Baltimore, Maryland, the prayer always ends with "James Cardinal Gibbons, pray for us." Is it proper to invoke …

Read more

03 Aug 2016 News No comments

The Olympics bring us together as ‘one human family’, says Pope

Pope Francis tells general audience that the Olympics brings down barriers between people from different backgrounds A more important prize than a gold medal i…

Read more
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
«
»

Did Tertullian and St. Augustine Deny the Real Presence?

Many Protestant apologists claim we Catholics present a partial picture of the early Fathers with regard to the Eucharist. Both Tertullian and St. Augustine, they will claim, did not believe in the “Real Presence,” as Catholics refer to the teaching of the Church on Transubstantiation.

For example:

Tertullian, “Against Marcion,” Bk 4, chapter 40:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.

St. Augustine, “On Christian Instruction” (ca. AD 410), 3, 16, 24:

If a preceptive statement [in the Scriptures] forbids either vice or crime, or commands what is either useful or beneficial, it is not figurative.  If, however, it seems to command vice or crime, or forbid what is either useful or beneficial, it is figurative.  “Unless,” He says, “you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.”  It seems to command crime or vice; therefore it is a figure prescribing that there be communication in the Lord’s passion and a grateful and salutary treasured remembrance that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us.

Both of these men clearly teach the Eucharist to be “figurative.” So does this mean not all early Christians and Fathers of the Church believed in the Real Presence?

Moreover, it is argued, none of the Fathers used the term “transubstantiation.” Are Catholics claiming something to be true that is contrary to what at least these two famous early Christians believed?

The Catholic Response

Actually, the Fathers of the Church were clearly unanimous when it comes to the Real Presence. As far as Tertullian is concerned, there is some question as to whether or not he should be categorized as a true Church Father because of the fact that he died a Montanist heretic. But that doesn’t really matter for our purpose here, because he clearly did believe in the Real Presence anyway.

When Tertullian and St. Augustine use the term “figurative,” they do not mean to deny the Real Presence. In the texts cited, St. Augustine, for example, is warning against falling into the trap of believing the Lord was going to cut off parts of his body and give them to us. This would be cannibalistic and that is a definite no-no.

Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol”  to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.

In the case of Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body…

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it.

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ca. AD 200), chapter 8:

The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.

On Prayer, Of Stations (Fasting), chapter 19:

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station (fast) must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God?

On Modesty, chapter 9:

He (the prodigal who comes back to Christ) receives again the pristine garment,–the condition, to wit, which Adam by transgression had lost. The ring also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the fatness of the Lord’s body—the Eucharist, to wit.

Similarly, St. Augustine also believed in the Real Presence. For example:

Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):

The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.

Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:

Here, St. Augustine comments on Psalm 119:109 in the Vulgate. The modern translations will more accurately say I hold my “life,” or my “soul” in my hands, or, “my life is at risk.” The Vulgate says, “And he was carried in his own hands.” This is the text St. Augustine would have known. He comments:

“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.

As far as the term transubstantiation is concerned, it is true that the term was not used authoritatively by the Church until the famous “Definition of Faith” of the 4th Lateran Council in AD 1215. However, this is simply the term the Church used to define a belief that goes back to the inspired words of Christ himself. It describes the biblical belief that the “substance” or “nature” of bread and wine at the Liturgy are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, while the “accidents” or “appearances” of bread and wine remain. The Fathers used multiple ways to communicate this truth even if they did not use the term “transubstantiation.”

Here are just two examples among the many I could cite:

Notice these Fathers plainly declare the nature of the bread to have been changed into the body of Christ. That is the essence of what  transubstantiation means.

You’ll also notice, especially with St. Cyril, that the term “figure” will be used as a synonym of “sign” just as we saw with Tertullian and Augustine while the context makes clear that he believes in the Real Presence.

St. Hippolytus:

The Apostolic Tradition (ca. AD 215), 21:

And then (after new converts have been baptized) the deacons immediately bring the oblation to the bishop; and he eucharists the bread into the antitype of the Body of Christ; and the cup of mixed wine, for an antitype of the Blood, which was shed for all who believe in Him; and milk and honey mixed together for the fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, which spoke of a land flowing with milk and honey, that is, the very flesh of Christ which He gave and by which they who believe are nourished like little children . . .

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

Catechetical Lectures (ca. AD 350), 22 (Mystigogic 4), 1-3, 6:

For Paul proclaimed clearly that: “On the night in which He was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take, eat, This is My Body.’  And taking the cup and giving thanks, He said, ‘Take, drink, This is My Blood.’” He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, “This is My Body,” who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, “This is My Blood,”  who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?…

Let us, then, with full confidence, partake 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 is given to you, so that by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, you might become united in body and blood with Him. For thus do we become Christ-bearers.

Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but–be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.

If you enjoyed this post and you would like to learn more, click here

Written By: Tim Staples










wpsd_autopost:
1

1 comment

  1. Silvano Toso Reply

    For me the question is simply a sign of lack of “catching” the Truth. Things like the reality of having the body and blood of Jesus Christ in your hands and in your month, when you take the Holy Communion is foremost a matter of Faith. Either you believe it or you don’t. I believe it, so I know, that am eating His flesh and drink His blood, when I go to Communion. Words are open to interpretations. As we say: to a believer one sign is more than enough to believe, and to an unbeliever thousands of signs are not enough. See the Jewish people, for example, who never believed on Jesus, although He did so many miracles and signs in front of them, and that Roman Centurion, who blindly believed on Jesus to be able to cure one of his servants, just because someone told him that Jesus could do that. That tells you volumes.
    The protestans have rejected the Gospel, sorry to say that, because if you read, e,g, the Gospel of Sain Luke 10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”, that was Jesus talking to his 12, to the apostles, giving them the sole authority of explain and teaching the Faith, thing that Saint Peter in his second letter, takes ownership by saying in 2 Peter 1:20 “knowing this first: that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” and further in the same letter Chapter 3:16
    “speaking of these things in all his letters. Some of his remarks are hard to understand, and people who are ignorant and whose faith is weak twist them to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” The Protestans became protestants because they protested against this “supremacy” of the Church (which was only catholic before the protestants came about), supremacy in interpreting the sacred scriptures, known as “Magisterium Ecclesiae”. “Who are you to tell us what to believe and how to interprete the sacred scriptures?” was the cry of some of the German catholics in the 15th century, and so they started to interprete the Divine Truth on their own, going against Luke 10:16 and fullfilling the “prophecy” of Saint Peter in his 2nd letter. So that is how the protestants started. Knowing this, if there is a conflict of interpretation, I side with the Catholic interpretation, because I know that what they say is true and correct.

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories