Thursday, August 8, 2019

Joseph M. Powers, S.J. on Augustine's Theology of the Eucharist


While researching the theology of the Eucharist among the patristic authors, one is struck by how, at times, they were inconsistent, no doubt clearly trying to wrestle the growing belief in a more substantial or “ontological” presence of Jesus in the Eucharist while Jesus remains in heaven until the eschaton, the Eucharist being a sacrifice and yet, the cross being a once-for-all sacrifice, and other beliefs. This has led some critics of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology to read one portion of an author’s writings which supports a “purely symbolic” view of the Eucharist while ignoring or trying to use such writings to overwhelm their other writings that teach a more ontological understanding of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist. Augustine (354-430) is a prime example of such. Personally, I think Augustine was inconsistent and did not hold to a “merely” symbolic or “merely” ontological understanding; as with the understanding of the relationship between our will and God’s predestination, it was something he wrestled with and never resolved in his lifetime.

While I do not agree with everything he writes about Augustine, Joseph M. Powers, a Jesuit priest and theologian, wrote the following about Augustine’s theology of the Eucharist; I reproduce it here showing that one always has to be careful when reading any author, patristic-era or not, and trying one’s best to be cognisant of the totality of their works on a given topic as well as how they used terms such as “sign” and “symbol”:

Augustine’s (d. 430) theology of the Eucharist is a “problem” for many theologians. The difficulty is not to be found in his lack of statements of the doctrine of the real presence. Rather, it is found in the fact that his theology of the Eucharist is far more comprehensive than the statement of the fact of the real presence. His sermons, letters and other writings abound with statements such as

The bread which you see on the altar, once it is sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. And that chalice, or rather, what the chalice contains, once it is sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. [Serm. 227]

This is a perfectly clear statement of the fact of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, a presence which is the result of the words of consecration. Without any philosophical elaboration, it is a clear and simple statement of the traditional belief of the Church at this time.

In spite of these statements, however, Augustine worries some theologians because of the sacramental context into which he sets the real presence. Thus, as van der Lof indicates, given the multiplicity of meanings in which Augustine uses the word “sacramentum,” some are disconcerted when he applies this word to the body and blood of Christ. On the one hand, it is true that the expressions such as “sacramentum corporis” and “sacramentum sanguinis” indicates the sacred species under which Christ is truly present. Thus in the De Trinitate, after distinguishing the ways in which Christ is present in the works of St. Paul (in his preaching, letters, in the sacrament of His body and blood), Augustine makes a sharp distinction between the different meanings of sacramentum:

. . . but we do not say that his tongue, nor his parchments nor the ink, nor the meaningful sounds which come from his tongue nor the marks of the letters as they are written by pens are the body and blood of the Lord; this is only to be found in that which has been taken from the fruits of the earth, consecrated by the prayer of the mystery and rightly received for our spiritual health in memory of the Lord’s suffering for us. [III, iv, 10]

In other words, the body and blood of the Lord are only present in their strictest sacramental sense when we receive the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist. What is important in the Eucharist, however, is not the physical fact of the real presence, but the fact that the really present Christ is received in the commemoration of His suffering for us. Christ is adored, as van der Meer remarks, not as a permanently reserved Host, but He is adored in the reverent handling and reception of the “sacrament” of His Body and blood, the Eucharistic Species. It is under these appearances, in these signs that Christ is present to be received for the salvation of the Christian.

Van der Lof indicates another “tension” in Augustine’s language which also disconcerts some theologians. This is a tension which arises once against from the sacramental context into which Augustine sets his treatment of the Eucharist. This full sacramental context is particularly striking in two sermons to the newly baptized. In the first, an Easter sermon to the newly baptized, he states:

You should know that you have received, what you will receive, what you should receive daily. The bread which you see on the altar, when it has been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ . . . If you have received it rightly, you are what you have received. For the Apostle says: because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body (1 Cor. 10, 17). This is how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table. [Serm. 227; PL 38, 1099-1100]

Again, in a Pentecost sermon to the newly baptized:

 . . . how is the bread His body? And the chalice, or rather what the chalice contains how is it His blood? Brethren, these things are called sacramenta because in them one thing is seen, but something else is understood. What is seen has a bodily appearance, but what is understood has a spiritual fruitfulness. Then, if you wish to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle, who says to the believers: You are the body of Christ and His members (1 Cor 12, 27). And thus, if you are the body of Christ and His members, it is your mystery which has been placed on the altar of the Lord; you receive your own mystery. You answer “Amen” to what are you, and in answering, you accept it. For you hear, “The body of Christ” and you answer “Amen.” Be a member of Christ’s body, so that your Amen may be true. [Serm. 272; PL 38, 1246-1247]

Thus the expression that the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist in figura (in a figure), in signo (in a sign), in sacramento (in a sacrament) does not mean that Christ is only symbolically present. It means, as has been seen, that Christ is present in the species of bread and wine which are the sign of His true corporeal presence and it means that this true corporeal presence is, in turn, a sacramentum, the sign and cause of a further grace-reality which is the very continuing existence of the Church as Christ’s body. In other words, the real presence of Christ is not the ultimate value in the Eucharist. The ultimate value of this presence is the unity of the Church brought about in the sacramental commemoration of the Passion of Christ in the reception of Christ under the species of bread and wine. (Joseph M. Powers, Eucharistic Theology [New York: Herder and Herder, 1972], 18-21)


For some of my articles where I have written against Catholic theology on the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and related teachings from the Bible and patristic literature, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)