What Was Augustine "Retracting" on Peter, The Rock, and Mathew 16?

Did Saint Augustine think that Peter was "the Rock" of Matthew 16:18 the church was founded upon? Towards the end of his life, Augustine looked over the scope of his literary output and put together a critique of his own writings, entitled Retractationes (in English popularly known as "retractions," but better understood as corrections, reconsiderations, revisions). He included an explanation of his view of Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Basically, Augustine says his earlier view was that the church was founded upon Peter, "the rock" and his later view was that Christ was the rock the church was founded upon. 

While this particular section from the Retractationes  is all over the Internet, I haven't found many instances of carefully working through the context. Protestants generally use the comment to demonstrate Augustine's later view doesn't line up with modern Roman Catholic argumentation about the papacy. Rome's defenders have a few different ways to handle the quote. One way suggests harmonizing Augustine's different positions by saying he was dealing with different issues so emphasized different things. Another way says he ultimately was agonistic on the exact meaning of Matthew 16:18. Another way says as a good Roman Catholic, Augustine maintained his earlier view to stay in harmony with the church. Yet another way simply ignores the details of Augustine's view on Matthew 16:18 and argues for Peter's papal primacy based on other writings from Augustine. 

I think, therefore, there are enough interpretative and historical ambiguities in the statement worth taking a close look at.  Augustine's view in the Retractationes is sort of like a football run in different directions depending on who has the ball. I've noticed polemicists on both sides using this quote without actually taking the nuances into account. I've also come across some weird truncated versions. For instance, this defender of Rome only cites "In my first book against Donatus I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock" and completely leaves out the rest of the statement! On the other end, I came across a non-Roman Catholic webpage that left off the last sentence, "Which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose." Highlighting one aspect of the quote or leaving out aspects of it is not a proper way to use Augustine's words. Let him say exactly what he said, not what you want him to say.

Let's first take a look at the statement from the Retractationes. Augustine writes,

[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him whom Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter, having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art the rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom (even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose. [Document 156- Retractationes, Book 1, Chapter 21. A.D. 427. [source]

Latin text: 

Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus. In quo dixi in quodam loco de Apostolo Petro quod in illo tamquam in petra fundata sit ecclesia; qui sensus etiam cantatur ore multorum in versibus beatissimi Ambrosii ubi de gallo galli-naceo ait Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae Canente culpam diluet; sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a Domino dictum est Tu es Petrus...meam, ut super hunc intelligeretur quern confessus est Petrus dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram aedificatur, et accepit claves regni caelorum. Non enim dictum est illi Tu es petra, sed Tu es Petrus; petra autem erat Christus quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Harum autem duarum sententiarum, quae sit probabilior, eligat lector. (PL32,618)

Alternate English text:

ONE BOOK AGAINST A LETTER OF THE HERETIC DONATUS (Contra epistulam Donati heretici liber unus) 

(1) In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus who, after Majorinus, was the second bishop of the party of Donatus at Carthage. In this letter, he argues that the baptism of Christ is believed to be only in his communion. It is against this letter that we speak in this book.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter; “On him as on a rock the Church was built.” This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: “At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt.” But I know that very frequently at a later time,3 I so explained what the Lord said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” n and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But "the rock was Christ,” in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter, But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. [The Fathers of the Church, a New Translation, vol. 60 (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1 (90-91)].

Another Alternate English text can be found here.

I see 4 basic sections to this statement from Augustine. 1) A recollection of his previous view, 2) A mention of Ambrose's view 3) An accounting of Augustine's later view, 4) A final ambiguous conclusion.  

1. Recollection of Augustine's Previous View

 Augustine first mentions what earlier work of his appears to be under the "revising" knife. In this case, it is his writing "In my first book against Donatus" ("Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus"). According to all the historical sources I utilized, they uniformly say this book no longer exists. This is not the only place where Augustine critiques Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus. The entry continues and Augustine points out more aspects of this writing that need to be corrected. 

Augustine affirms that his earlier view was that the church was established on Peter, the "Rock."  Augustine saw this earlier interpretation and literary location of it so important he needed readers to be aware of it, and that it was not consistent with his later position.  It's unfortunate this early book is missing. It would be interesting to see the extent of Augustine's comments on the issue and why this particular book was singled out. This source points out this may be the only writing from Augustine "directed against the man who is thought to have given his name to the Donatists" and that several treatises from Augustine are missing against the Donatists. 

Note carefully that Augustine speaks here of "a certain passage" rather than passages. One source using this quote says it may be the only instance of Peter being referred to as the "Rock." Some of Rome's defenders though have located other places in Augustine's writings in which he does equate Peter being the Rock. It appears to me this list of instances originated on this webpage (a cut-and-paste of it can be found here). Let's work through these examples. 

An example from roughly the same time period as the lost treatise comes from another similarly anti-Donatist writing: Psalmus contra partem Donati (393-394).  It's not from a treatise per se, but from a hymn Augustine wrote in response to Donatist hymns being sung, therefore not an actual argument or exegesis, merely a passing lyrical phrase (Augustine also mentions it in The Retractations). Another early passing "Rock" reference is found in De agone christiano (The Christian Combat) (396-397), found here. Again, it is simply a passing inference.  In a letter from 400 Augustine, again with the Donatists in view, refers to Peter as "bearing in a figure the whole church" and referred to as the "Rock," yet though again another passing reference.  In another comment from 400 A.D., "Petrus, qui paulo ante eum confessus est Filium Dei, et in illa confessione appellatus est petra, supra quam fabricaretur ecclesia" (Pl 36,869. cf. Allnatt,  11- 12), similar to the previous, just a passing reference. All of these references appear to testify to Augustine's earlier view discussed in Retractationes. 

Rome's defenders also mention later comments from Augustine equating Peter being the "Rock" the church was founded upon... but these refences aren't so clear.  A comment in Augustine's Homilies on John, Tract 11:5, in NPNF1,VII:76 occurs seventeen years later (417 A.D.), but simply mentions Peter being called, "that Rock," with no indication that the building of the church is intended to rest on Peter. Similarly with Augustine's 418 A.D. comment on Psalm 56 in NPNF1,VIII:223: it's not at all clear that Augustine is expressing his earlier view.  Another "that rock" comment occurs in a 418 A.D. writing (NPNF1,VIII:513), again, not clearly expressing the earlier view.  I think we can safely take Augustine at his word that early on (at least those of 393-400 from the quotes I checked), he did indeed say Peter was the "Rock" the church was founded upon. If he used the word "Rock" later (according to the examples from Rome's defenders that I checked), I see no clear-cut contextual evidence the earlier meaning was intended. Granted Augustine was a great theologian, but he was not an infallible theologian. I would not be at all surprised if he erred in consistency, went through a transition period, or if extant manuscripts contain errors.  

 

2. "Ambrose: When the cock crowed, the rock of the church washes away his guilt"

Augustine mentions Ambrose as regarding Peter as the "Rock" with a similar interpretation to his first book against the Donatists. If you're unfamiliar with the hymn, what Augustine is saying may not make much sense, "When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin." Is it that the "rock of the church," Peter the pope, when crowing, absolves from sin? No, it's a poetic rendering of Peter's denial of Christ (Matthew 26 Mark 14, Luke 22,  John 18).

 This source documents Augustine's mention of Ambrose as, "Ambrose, Hymn I (MPL, XVI, Col. 1409): Exameron V, xxiv, 88 (CSEL, XXXII, p. 201)." "Hymn 1" refers to Aeterne rerum conditor. The hymn does have allusions to Peter as the Rock: "The encouraged sailor’s fears are o’er, The foaming billows rage no more: Lo! E’en the very Church’s Rock, Melts at the crowing of the cock," or in another English translation, "Because of him the sailor gathers strength and the expanse of sea grows mild. when he, the herald, crowed, the Rock himself, the foundation of the Church, washed guilt away by his weeping." The "washed away guilt" is a reference to Peter's denial of Christ and the crowing rooster.  Augustine is attributing the hymn of Ambrose popularizing Peter being the "Rock" the church was founded on, "sung in the mouths of many." 

3. Augustine's Later View

Augustine compares these two meager mentions of Peter being the "Rock" to his "frequent" different interpretation that the "Rock" is Christ, not Peter.  He spends much more time explaining the second view. There's nothing in the sense of a repudiation, but rather a description of his later consistent position. Footnote #3 in the alternate translation utilized above mentions only one instance of Augustine's later view, Sermon 76.1.1. There Augustine states, 

1). The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea;1 and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”2 Then He added, “and I say unto thee.” As if He had said, “Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called3 from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

Augustine immediately goes on to say in point 2: "For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, 'But I am of Christ.'"  A number citations from Augustine could be presented at this point to corroborate Augustine's testimony. Rather than reinvent the wheel, this source and this source present a number of Augustine citations affirming the later view of Augustine (though some of the specific dates are unclear to me in some of the utilized citations).  A profound strength of these later citations is they are not passing references like those used to support the earlier view Rome's defenders bring forth. One thing I could not locate from my cursory search of Augustine's writings is any mentions of Peter and his relation to the word "Rock" after the writing of the Retractationes (427). Augustine died a few years later. 

4. "However, the reader may choose which of these two notions is more plausible"

Augustine concludes, "But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." If the Retractationes  from Augustine did not include the last sentence, the entire pericope would be easier to interpret.  Of the Protestant sources I checked, the interpretation is similar: Augustine was correcting his earlier view, maintaining his later view, and finally concludes allowing his readers the choice which one was preferred. This seems to be the easiest and most consistent reading of the text. This source makes pertinent observations:

The fact that [Augustine] would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated. Can the reader imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16? But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes.

Granted, I know that sometimes the easiest solution (in this case, interpretation) is not always the correct one. I learned that from my many years of searching out Luther quotes and their interpretive conclusions. I'm willing to hear what Rome's defenders have to say: convince me the easiest reading is not the correct interpretation.  From a cursory search, here's what I found being offered as an alternate explanation.   

 This old source makes the following Roman Catholic leaning observation: 

This is interesting, because it shows that Augustine couldn’t make a decision as to whether Peter or Christ was the rock upon which the church was founded. He had earlier held the former point of view, and Lagrange thinks that the former interpretation would be best, because, as a good Catholic, he follows the interpretation Of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Council, which upheld that view.  

Contemporary Roman Catholic interpretations I cobbled together for this entry tend to present even more complicated explanations.  This other defender of Rome states:  

Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above, Augustine equated the rock with Peter’s faith, Peter’s successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified “this rock” with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated “this rock” with Christ not to downplay Peter’s primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church’s foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter’s primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose’s hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, ‘Peter having been named after this rock ‘(Retractations1:21).

Trent Horn of Catholic Answers offers, 

Checking Horn's source, Merry del Val offers yet another layer to Rome's response: "Augustine does allude to what he wrote when he was young, as requires correction: but it is also true that he adds in the same sentence that he does not assume even now that what he is writing will be without blemish. He does not say that he prefers a different translation, but only suggests another." 

Rome's defenders are obviously not unified in their explanations of Augustine's final statement. Their explanations amount to, "I know it looks like this, but it could (or does!) mean that." Of the examples above, the first simply assumes Augustine went along with what the late Vatican council held, the second obfuscates by having Augustine adhere to multiple interpretations, the third claims Augustine simply provided an "alternative of what the words could mean," and the last insinuates that even the older Augustine could be mistaken. That Rome's defenders produce multiple interpretations of the text speak against any of their interpretations. If there was a unified body of an alternative interpretation to the obvious, then I think they could be taken more plausibly. 

Conclusion

I see a few interpretive choices here based solely on the text itself. First, Augustine is negating his earlier view, confirming his later view, and then informing his readers they can choose which one they like. Second, Augustine is explaining his earlier view, explaining its difference with his later view, and then telling his readers he doesn't know which one is correct and they can pick which one they like.

As I read the brief context of this statement, Augustine says his earlier view was that "the Church is founded upon [Peter] as upon a rock," and then expresses his current view. He says of his later view, "But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words..." etc. Note the word, "frequently."  Even in this present context, he spends more time explaining the second view. I've not come across any meaningful documentation that his later view changed or that affirms or corroborates his final view of Matthew 16:18 was either ambiguous or agnostic. In his honest appraisal of his life's work, he was aware of the discontinuity between the two views and suspected (or knew) others saw it as well. Add in the fact that interpreting Matthew 16:18 according to his earlier view was popular during his lifetime, that he contrasted the two views and allowed his readers freedom of interpretation makes sense. 

The Wobbly and Heretical Evolution of Rome’s Doctrine of “Real Presence”

Paul Hoffer has commented on Ken’s article on (a) Augustine’s errors, and (b) Roman Catholic misuse of Augustine in his errors.

Hoffer said:

I would suggest that the reader follow the link you have put up to Augustine's words. You may fashion an argument over how Real of a Presence he believed was present in the Eucharist here, but what you can't argue about is that he was talking about something else.

If God truly is in the Eucharist as Augustine writes, then it is entirely appropriate for us to bow down and worship Him there. As I hope to show in the near future, Augustine's views are entirely in line with those of Ambrose, his mentor and the Catholic Church at that time and what the Church teaches yet today. I do recognize that you are merely parroting the opinion of your particular denomination on this matter. I must wonder though how Protestants who do accept the doctrine of the Real Presence interpret the passage in question. How do you reconcile your denial of the Real Presence with those Protestants who do recognize to varying extents the truth of the doctrine?

Paul Hoffer here touches on one of those clearly heretical “developments” that Ron DiGiacomo was talking about, that we should not hesitate to bring up.

Edward Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharist in the West” (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press) sheds some light here.

In our day, many Catholic theologians of the Latin tradition favor the notion of the objective sacramental representation of the historical redemptive work of Christ “on the altar.” In other words priority is awarded to the notion that the Eucharistic liturgy is the means by which the historical redemptive sacrifice of Christ is represented sacramentally so as to become available to be encountered by faith. The advocates of this average modern Catholic position have attempted to support their position especially by an appeal to Greek patristic theology.

However, the ambiguity of the precise meaning of the Greek speculation on the link between the historical self-offering of Christ and the Eucharistic sacrifice provides a major obstacle to this argument from the authority of tradition.

I will say it here. Rome completely fouled up its own understanding of the Lord’s Supper; now it looks to the Eastern churches for some clarification of the “ancientness” of its beliefs in this regard.

Now, I don’t know all the angles on the eastern conception of the Eucharist. Paul Hoffer rightly cites Ambrose of Milan (c. 337-397) both as Augustine’s mentor and as one who played a formative role in the western church’s (i.e., Rome’s) understanding of the Eucharist.

However, the view that Ambrose helped to formulate is not the New Testament teaching on the Lord’s Supper, and nor is it the same as what was taught by earlier church fathers, either in the east or the west.

Schaff provides some perspective:

The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.

Now, where have we seen this theme before?

Nevertheless, Roman Catholics will of course cite various passages from Ignatius and the Didache to the effect that the earliest church, emphasis was not on the mode of Christ’s presence (i.e., “real” or “spiritual”), but on the “worthy participation,” as Schaff notes. And that was Paul’s insistence, too (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Keith Mathison, in his work “Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, ©2002), notes that, in discussions of “real presence,” great care must be given to understand “to what extent were the early fathers influenced by Platonic thought?” Mathison cites Gary Macy on the history of the theology of the Lord’s Supper:

Nothing is more important in understanding Christian thought on the eucharist than the simple insight that for most of Christian history, people who wrote about the eucharist just assumed that Plato was right. The most “real” things were those grasped by the mind; the least “real” things were those things that were sensed. “Essences” (or “substances” or “forms”) were always more real than sense data (329).

That is, when an ancient said “real presence,” there was the greatest likelihood that he was saying “real” in the Platonic sense. What was “real” was not that which one could “touch with one’s hands,” – that is, for Plato, “there was a whole world of perfect objects (which he called “forms”) that serve as criteria for the objects of our knowledge, and he argued that we must know the forms with greater certainty than anything else” (John Frame, “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God,” pg 111).

So if something was “real” (consider the term “real presence”), it was not the tangible, physical presence that someone was talking about; “real” was something “out there,” “floating in space,” – quite the opposite of what people understand today when they say “real presence”. Schaff points out that there were, “among the ante-Nicene fathers, three different views” [of the Lord’s Supper], and Kilmartin notes that “the Latin Fathers show less concern for the speculative aspects of Eucharistic theology than the Greek fathers. Their interest is geared more to the pastoral and practical side of the efficacy of the Eucharistic sacrifice and Holy Communion. Also, although acquainted with a Platonic way of thinking about reality, they were less consistent about its application to the Eucharist.” Augustine’s view could be said to be more Platonic:

On the subject of the reception of the sacraments of the body and blood, Augustine describes the gift that is bestowed on the communicant as a virtus, unitas, caritas, by which one is integrated more deeply into the “society of the predestined, called, justified, and glorified saints and faithful.” Augustine views the grace of the Eucharist as that which unites the believers to Christ and to one another. He describes this grace as grace of the Spirit of Christ, signified by the sacrament, and bestowed on believers on the occasion of their participation in the sacrament. The grace is not conceived as though contained, as it were, in the external sacrament. Much less does Augustine teach that the body and blood of Christ are “contained” under the forms of bread and wine. The theology the fourth-century Antiochene [Eastern] School concerning the somatic real presence of Christ under forms of bread and wine is definitely not that of Augustine.

On the other hand, the Eastern theology of the fourth-century Antiochene tradition, as exemplified in the writings of St. John Chrysostom, was clearly and strongly reflected in the writings of St. Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose confessed the somatic real presence of Christ under forms of bread and wine, effected through conversion of elements into the body and blood of Christ (5-6).

Kilmartin notes, This metabolic understanding of the change is a new concept which goes beyond what would develop from an image theology. Hence, at least in the early Middle Ages, Ambrose’s teaching also provided the basis for an alternative to the traditional fourth-century (realistic, metabolic-conversion) Antiochene explanation of the process of Eucharistic conversion (18).

On the question of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ambrose provides an example of the difference of the orientation between the Eastern and Western traditions. The Greek Fathers of the fourth-century Antiochene tradition base the sacrificial character of the Eucharist on the concept of anamnesis: the commemorative actual presence of the one and unique sacrifice of Christ on the cross. … Ambrose teaches that it is precisely the liturgical assembly that is the subject of the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice … The idea that each individual Mass has a value in itself as a kind of new act of Christ performed in and through the sacrificial offering of the Church [derives from Ambrose].

Ambrose’s doctrine of the somatic presence of Christ under forms of bread and wine was borrowed from the fourth-century Antiochene tradition. But … it was not “received” within the Platonic horizon of the Greek theologians. However, his teaching on this subject, thus separated from its natural Platonic horizon, became the viable – and eventually triumphant – option in the Latin Church of the early Middle Ages over against the “spiritualized” interpretation of the content of the sacraments of the body and blood linked to the Augustinian tradition. Likewise Ambrose’s teaching about the Christological aspect of the Eucharistic sacrifice shows no signs of the influence of the Greek notion of commemorative sacrifice. This fact, which proves that Ambrose’s “reception” of Greek Eucharistic theology was only partial, is indicative of the difficulty which the Western theological mindset has traditionally experienced in its attempts to grasp the Greek notion of commemorative sacrifice.

By the end of the sixth century this Greek concept, which could have served the interests of a more balanced theology of the Eucharistic sacrifice, was no longer present to the Western tradition. At the same time the tendency of the Western theology of Eucharistic sacrifice toward postulating a complete disjunction between the historical sacrifice of the cross and the Eucharistic sacrifice received additional support from Pope Gregory the Great’s saying that “(Christ) in the mystery of the holy sacrifice is offered for us again (iterum)” [from Dialogorum libri iv 4.58 (PL 77.425CD). This text is one of the earliest that refers to Christ being “newly” offered. Supported by the authority of Gregory it became an important proof text for the notion that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated in each Mass in an “unbloody way” (19-22).

Thus we have come full circle: here we have papal affirmation (and it’s Pope Gregory The Great!) of the very opposite of what the Scripture teaches, in which Christ died “once for all,” and “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

Modern Roman Catholicism has tried to play down that embarrassing “repeated in an unbloody way” language, and have made the effort to re-adopt the “re-presentation of the one sacrifice” imagery; but modern Roman Catholics should know that is a Greek concept that Rome once rejected.

For those Roman Catholics who think that Rome’s doctrine of the Eucharist is somehow the Eucharistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper that was held by the earliest church, you are just simply deceived. You are putting more faith in the vascillating “traditions” of the Roman church, than you are in either the genuine early traditions of the church, or the clear teachings of Scripture on this matter.

Ambrose on Justification

Luther: "Moreover I am not the only one, or even the first, to say that faith alone justifies. Ambrose said it before me, and Augustine and many others" [LW 35:197].

Ambrose: "God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest any should glory in his deeds and should thereby incur sin."

No, Luther doesn't use this Ambrose quote. But, I've been trying to track down the context of this Ambrose quote, as well as finding out which texts of Ambrose Luther had, and to what he meant. The LW edition, usually footnoting such obscurities, doesn't have a footnote for this point at LW 35:197. Luther was probably referring to Ambrose commenting on Romans 3:28.

I came across an interesting web page: Ambrose on Justification: A Study in the Catholicity of Lutheran Theology. The page is from a Lutheran. The author cites the Ambrose quote as "In ps. 43 enarr. 14; quoted in Dudden II, p. 627". "Dudden" is: F. Holmes Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), Vol. II.

"ps. 43 enarr. 14" is "Explanations of Twelve Psalms of David (Enarrationes in xii psalmos davidicos) LT: PL 14:963-1238; CSEL 64. The volume contains Ambrose's sermons on Psalm 1, 35-40, 43, 45, 47-48, and 61. The commentary/sermon on Psalm 43 is incomplete, because Ambrose died [source].

The same Ambrose quote is used by a pro-Roman Catholic site. After citing this same quote, the web page goes on to state:

Ambrose would also say: "Without the support of faith good works cannot stand" (On the Duties of the Clergy, 2, 7). That means that with the support of faith, good works can stand. If they can stand, then they certainly do not lead one to boast in himself, they do not lead one to sin. Ambrose has in mind a distinction here between "works" leading us to boast in God and "works" leading us to boast in ourselves. These latter works can never stand, with or without the support of faith.

Phillip Schaff explains the view of Ambrose on justification:

"As to justification, St. Ambrose ascribes the whole work to the Holy Spirit, Who seals us in our hearts, as we receive the outward sign in our bodies. Through the Holy Spirit we receive a share of the grace of adoption. Christ was perfect according to the fulness of His Majesty ; we are perfected by a continual progress in virtue."