My dad asked me last night for some resources showing the views of the Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist. A woman he does hospital ministry with had heard that the Church didn’t believe in transubstantiation until the 1200s. This is a common error: the Church defined the dogma in the 1200s, but only because before that, it was so well understood that there was no need to define it. Similarly, you won’t see a lot of early Catholic writings (much less Church definitions) on gay marriage, just because taking a view other than the Catholic one was quite literally unthinkable. It doesn’t mean the early Church was okay with (or even neutral on) the question of gay marriage – just that the topic wasn’t in serious controversy. In any case, I’ve decided to make an admittedly-incomplete list of writings from the early Church demonstrating a belief in the Real Presence. Today, I’m only going to look at the time of the Apostles until the year 200 A.D. Hopefully, sometime later this week, I’ll be able to tackle some of the really great resources we have from the period of 200 to about 400 A.D.
Let’s set the stage, historically. By 200, there’s been no ecumenical Church Councils since the Council of Jerusalem — the Council of Nicea is still 125 years away. While the Books which would later become the Bible are widely circulated and seem to have generally been understood to be inspired Scripture, there are still some disagreements over which books are canonical, and even what “canonical” implies: namely, do we read a given Book in Church only if it’s inspired? Or is it okay if it’s uninspired, if it’s still an accurate source of information about the Faith? (In modern terms, it would be like wondering if the Catechism should be one of the Readings in Mass). The first time we see the word “Trinity” used to describe God is in 181 A.D. The reality is there, but crafting a precise philosophical language to capture these realities takes time. In contrast to the kinks that the early Church was hammering out on everything from the Trinity to the Bible, their grasp of Eucharistic theology is almost shockingly clear. Even though philosophical terms like transubstantiation are far in the future, we’re already seeing, by 200, terms like transmutation being used to describe what the words of consecration does to the bread and wine, and what the Eucharist does to our soul.
The Didache is probably as old as the New Testament, and was in widespread use by the death of the Apostle John in 100 A.D. Unlike the Scriptures, the Didache isn’t the work of a single author. Rather, it’s something like an early Church catechism: outlining just the basics of Church practice. Chapter 9 is on the Eucharist, and after proscribing some beautiful and simple pre-Consecration prayers, it instructs: “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.’” In the next chapter, there’s a post-Communion prayer of thanksgiving, in which the Church prayed in part: “Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant.“
Ignatius dealt with the first Eucharistic controversy in the Church: the Gnostics. The Gnostics major heresy wasn’t denying the Real Presence: rather, they denied that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. But as a result of this, Ignatius notes, they couldn’t affirm the Eucharist, and thus, we can’t commune with them. This is from Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 7:
They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
This same Ignatius, in his letter to the Ephesians, refers to the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality.”
Justin Martyr clearly shows that from the beginning, the Church held that not only was the Eucharist the Flesh and Blood of Christ, it also wasn’t bread and wine after the consecration. Here’s Chapter 66 of his First Apology:
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
So once a certain prayer of His word is said, the bread and wine cease to be common bread and wine, and become spiritual Bread and Wine: namely, “the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was made Flesh.” The “prayer of His word” is the prayer of consecration, as Justin explains, quoting Christ at the Last Supper. What’s translated there as “transmutation” is incredible. The actual phrase is “kata metabolen,” and that metabolen is the root word of our word “metabolize.” What Justin is actually saying is that by the Eucharist, our own body and blood is nourish and metabolized by Christ. Just as when we eat bread and drink wine, we turn the elements into our body through metabolism, when we eat the Eucharist, Christ metabolizes us (so to speak) into His Body. This is very much consistent with the view Scripture presents in places like 1 Corinthians 10:17.
Irenaeus was faced with a second Eucharistic heresy: this time, the heretics were claiming that spirit was good, but flesh and blood were evil, and that we were simply souls trapped in our evil bodies. Salvation, to these heretics, consisted of being liberated from flesh and blood. Irenaeus, in Book V, Chapter 2 of Against Heresies, used the example of the Eucharist to show that the material world isn’t evil for three reasons: (1) material bread and wine, taken from the earth, become the Body and Blood of God; (2) the Eucharist is His physical Body and Blood, not some invisible spiritual “Body” [this point was assumed in Irenaeus’ time, but is very much in controversy now]; and (3) through the Eucharist, we’re promised that our bodies will, after death, be glorified in the same way the bread and wine are glorified. That part is fantastic. But there’s an even clearer passage. In Book IV, Chapter 18, Irenaeus is dealing with the same heresy, and noting that these heretics still offer Mass. His argument is simple: they should either base their theology off of the Eucharist, like Catholics, or stop offering Mass:
Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
This passage is also helpful in that Irenaeus mentions that the bread ceases to be common bread at the point it becomes the Eucharist. It still has an earthly reality (we’d say “the accidents” of bread), but it’s not bread anymore.
I should mention that Tertullian, while brilliant on many points, isn’t the most reliable Church Father. He became a Montanist later in life, and may have even died outside the Church. But we still can see quite clearly that he shares the same Eucharistic faith as those others we explored above. One of the issues Tertullian addressed in Chapter 19 of On Prayer was whether we should receive Communion on fast days (called “Station” days). He says yes, because it’s the Lord’s Body, and that’s Who we’re striving for. He also notes, as many of the above Fathers before him noted, that the Eucharist is truly a Sacrifice offered to the Father:
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 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? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.
Thanks. These are incredibly clear on the Real Presence.
Beautifully done. I appreciate, as always, the concise way in which you place the information right in our hands (or brains!). This is an excellent resource and one that I will share with my seniors in religious ed. Looking forward to Part II!
I’ve added Part II (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/01/early-church-fathers-on-eucharist-c-200.html) and Part III (http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/01/early-church-fathers-on-eucharist-c-300.html). Sorry it took so long, and enjoy!
Hi Joe,
For a number of months now, I have been struggling with doctrine of the Eucharist, particularly, that the bread and wine LITERALLY become the body and blood of our Lord. With this in mind, the following you wrote ‘caught my eye’:
>>This passage is also helpful in that Irenaeus mentions that the bread ceases to be common bread at the point it becomes the Eucharist. It still has an earthly reality (we’d say “the accidents” of bread), but it’s not bread anymore.>>
Could you clarify/delve into this a bit more deeply for me, touching on the difference(s) between the “earthly reality”/”the accidents” and “form”. My difficulty concerning the “accidents” and “form” distinction(s) has nothing do with our ‘senses’ (e.g. sight, touch, smell, taste) but rather, with the atomic/elemental composition of the transubstantiated elements.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
This is the best explanation I’ve ever encountered.
Here’s another good one.
I hope those help.
Sincerely,
De Maria
it is interesting that there is no spiritual empowerment in this activity– where if you are baptised in the presence of the spirit there is a real presence.but it does make you feel “warm and fuzzy”
as it is a man made reproduction of the sadar pass over feast
Being humbled and exalted is pretty spiritual empowerment activity I would think.
Presbyterians teach the real presence, but that of the Spirit of Christ in the bread, and not that the bread literally takes on the fleshy quality of flesh. From what I have been told, the interpretation is based upon the Council of Chalcedon pertaining to Christ being fully God and fully man. Being that His flesh is from His human nature and He was resurrected in His body, how can His body be in more than one place at once without violating His human nature?
Thanks!
Craig,
Good question. I address it here: Does the Eucharist Deny Chalcedon?
I.X.,
Joe
I was wondering if you have ever looked into the question, “who can take the Eucharist?” I tried following but I think that after Contastine there is no mention on the subject as if it was stablished that only those that are baptized. let me know please
Though, I don’t believe this, thanks for enabling me to understand a bit more about ‘The Real Presence’.
However, we are saved by Grace alone and Christ’s Sacrifice ‘Once and for all’ as mentioned in Hebrews.
No hard feelings and I wish you all a Blessed Christmas and New Year.
God Bless,
Annette an Evangelical Christian and ex-Catholic.
Annette,
I think one thing all Christians could agree on is that Truth doesn’t change. Therefore, the Truths of Christianity that is taught today should be the same Truths that was taught by the Christians in the first century. What may have gone unrecognized in the article above in the section, Ignatius of Antioch (c. 103-107 A.D.), is that St. Ignatius of Antioch was a Disciple of St. John the Apostle. You could re-read what the author of the article was pointing out but I would encourage you to read the whole letter of St. Ignatius in it’s entirety. It has several chapters but each chapter only takes about 1-3 minutes to read. As a student of St. John, hear what he has to say. If you don’t desire to read it all, at least read Chapters 7-9. It should only take about 10 minutes. As you read the link below think to yourself if this is the same Truth you believe today that Ignatius learned from the Apostle John.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
As for me, I believe whole heartedly what he wrote and accept it as the Truth. There is a lot that was addressed in this letter but what I am going to present to you is an alternative perspective on the Eucharist. It may appear to be lenthy but I’m hoping to shed new light to your view on the Eucharist.
Although you are correct to state that, “we are saved by Grace alone and Christ’s Sacrifice ‘Once and for all’ as mentioned in Hebrews”, the Eucharist does not contradict His Salvific Grace. Rather, the Eucharist is an instrument in which He imputes His Grace upon us. He can Save us with or without the Eucharist simply by His Grace alone but let us re-examine the broad picture.
A reasonable question one can ask is, “Why did Jesus command us to partake in the Lord’s Supper at all? Evangelicals have great explanations to the allegory of the Lord’s Supper that Catholics totally agree with. However, all that they would explain would be totally valid even without consuming the the bread and wine and unnecessary. Other than following His command, the action is just symbolic in an Evangelical perspective. However, there is more going on here. What we can’t loose focus on is the Sacrifice of the Lamb.
When we accept the Lord as our Savior and His Sacrifice for the atonement of our sins, then by this act of Faith we are actually offering up Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb for the atonement of our sins. Since Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill them (Mat 5:17) then according to the laws written all throughout Levitcus regarding sin offerings, the sacrifice has to be eaten. That would indicate that without the consumption of the offering, the atonement would not be complete. Furthmore, it was a must to be consumed in the sanctuary (Lev 10:17).
Let us call to mind that when the Passover was first instituted, not only was a lamb to be sacrificed it was commanded that it had to be eaten (Exodus 12:8). If the lamb was sacrificed but not eaten, what would happen to their first born son in the morning? He would have no life in him. Could God have saved them by His Grace alone? Yes, but He chose for the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb (as well as for it to be eaten) as the instrument of their salvation.
Likewise, as explained in John 6:53-58, Jesus calls us to His Supper as the instrument of our Salvation and explains that without it we would have no life in us yet those who do consume it would have eternal life. This call to His Supper fulfills the requirements of the old exodus and, therefore, becomes a requirement for the New Exodos. Jesus knows that He is the Sacrificial of Lamb of God so that’s why He calls us to eat the Lamb in order for death to pass us by.
“53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”.
But does this answer the question as to whether or not Jesus was speaking symbolically or literally?
To answer this question we have to apply the sacrificial terms to the first passover. Let’s assume the family didn’t like lamb and chose to eat steak in symbolic of the lamb? What would happen to their first born son in the morning? He would have no life in him. In order for the angel of death to pass over their house they would have to eat the lamb. Therefore, when Jesus proclaims that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you, it would then require that what He is offering us in the Eucharistic Celebration is His true Flesh and Blood. Nothing symbolic of His Flesh and Blood would have any Saving Grace.
If you read the entire Bread of Life discourse you will notice that the context of this discourse is Jesus repeatedly stating over and over again what He is telling them is the Truth. The best way to read the Bread of Life discourse is to read it while thinking to yourself, “Is Jesus trying to get them to believe what He is saying is just a symbolic metaphore? Or, is He trying to get them to believe what He is telling them is the Truth?” Even when everyone abandoned Him, He stuck to His claim. Yet, just like Peter’s humble admonition, this is a hard saying to accept. Like Paul’s stance that you are Saved by Faith, the Apostles demonstrated true Faith when they continued to follow Jesus in the midst of doubt and lack of understanding.
On more than one occasion Jesus offers to do something so that others would believe. For example, Jesus made the paralytic able to walk to prove that He had the power to forgive sins. In the same manner, Jesus offers them proof. To summarize John 6:62, Jesus knows that His Apostles were struggling to understand the Bread of Life discourse which entails accepting that His Flesh and Blood is true food and drink. So He offered them a proof. He tells them, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?”. In other words, what Jesus is saying is, “If you were to see Me ascend, would you believe Me then?”. In Acts 1 we see Him doing just that in front of His Apostles. He posed the question as a proof for them to believe Him…and He did it.
Now there’s still an issue of understanding how the elements of the bread and wine become His Flesh and Blood. Well… that’s a mystery too complex for our finite minds to comprehend. However, it may help in light of how God reveals Himself in other ways.
God revealed Himself in the burning bush. He revealed Himself in a pillar of fire and cloud of smoke. God, the Holy Spirit, revealed Himself in the form of a dove that rested on the shoulder of the revealed God the Son. How God is able to take upon multiple forms is a mystery to us but we shouldn’t be perplexed by this is if we understand the power of the Word of God:
When He said, “Let there be light”, there was light.
Genesis 1:3.
When a great storm arose, He rebuked it and it became calm. Matthew 8:26.
When Peter wanted Jesus to call him out onto the water, He replied to the Apostle, “Come” and Peter walked on the water.
Matthew 14:28-29.
When two demoniacs coming out of the tombs met Jesus, out of fear that He was there to torment them, they begged Him to cast them into a nearby heard of swine. Jesus said, “Go” and they went into the swine.
Matthew 8:31-32
When the centurion told Jesus, “Just say the word and my servant will be healed.” Jesus said, “Go, let it be done”, and his servant was healed at that very moment.
Mathew 8:13.
When Jesus entered the room of a little girl who had just recently died, He grabbed her by the hand and told her, “Arise” and she got up.
Mark 5:41
When Jesus stood outside of the tomb and yelled out in a loud voice, “Laz’rus come out!”, he came out.
John 11:43-44
When on the night Jesus was betrayed and an armed band of soldiers came to arrest Him, they asked if He was Jesus. He then unleashed the power of His Divine name simply by uttering it, “I Am”, and the soldiers all fell to the ground.
John 18:6
Wow! His words are mighty indeed, and they should not be taken lightly. The Word of God is so powerful that whenever He says so, it is so. Therefore, it goes to reason that when the GREAT I AM says, “This is my Body and this is my Blood”…IT IS.
Annette,
You are right that we are Saved by Grace alone but the Grace of the life saving Eucharist shouldn’t be undermined. It’s a hard concept for people to understand that eternal life can come through eating. However, it was by eating that was the source of our death. It only seems reasonable that since eating a fruit caused damnation, the fruit of redemption would also come by eating it as well.
In the Garden of Eden people know all too well of the tree of knowledge but they pay little attention to the other tree in the garden – the Tree of Life. That was the tree that Satan didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat from and that’s the same tree he keeps good Christians from. Annette, Satan doesn’t want you to eat from the Lord’s True Supper but I would like to extend you an invitation back to the table. I pray that you open your heart to research what the Catholic Church teaches. Not through the perspective of non-Catholics or from the Gospel according to the Book of YouTube, but from an authoritative Catholic source. I pray that you better understand the Faith and that you find your way back home to the Catholic Church.
Your brother in Christ,
Mark A. Rivera
What a beautiful and heartfelt invitation!
Mark,
Great explanation of the Eucharist. As a former evangelical (over 40 years), this really helps drive home the truth of the Eucharist. My wife however has not crossed the Tiber with me and is very much engaged in the PCA church. And as you know, covenant theology is a completely different beast when it comes to the Eucharist. Love to get your thoughts on this ([email protected])
Being saved by grace alone is a gross misinterpretation of scripture.Accepting God’s grace or trusting in Jesus is an act of the will and it is a personal effort so work is done here to assist in our salvation…. If not,
there would be no judgement day for us.
Hello and thank you for this Joe.
It wasn’t unanimous though: http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
It seems, as ever, the context makes a difference.
Interested in any thoughts on this.
As an orthodox priest, I am ever grateful to stand at His altar. May all peoples be drawn to Christ and share in the bread of life. Thanks for the quotes.
Hi Joe,
I’m a Protestant exploring the Catholic Church and I found you by google search. Since then I’ve spent hours reading your stuff.
Your work is thorough and brilliant, thank you.
That said, I came across a Protestant blogger using many of the Church Fathers you reference as proof AGAINST the real presence view.
It’s a fairly long piece, but it may be worth looking at. I’d love to hear your thoughts:
https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/comment-page-1526/#comments
Thanks again for the great work Joe!
The quotes above don’t even come close to teaching that Jesus Christ, who is in a Body, who showed that body to his disciples, gets called down by heaven by “authorized fully ordained catholic priest” (A boast and jab at all other Christians that still continues with full force even after all the debauchery and gay cabals active among these priests), and then Jesus is Literally Eaten.
It would be quite easy for Paul or Peter to say that in God’s word. It would have been very easy for Jesus to say let me be clear.. You will literally be eating me. My words are not spirit. I’m not being figurative.
How, and in what manner people started to actually lose the point Christ & his Apostles were making about the bread & wine coincides with hundreds of other abuses, crimes, and false doctrines that reduced the Gospel into precisely what Paul fought so hard to condemn. The freedom of the New Covenant was turned into a ritual based religion of works.
Jesus was obviously alive when he explained his words about flesh were only spiritual (like every other point in John). No one thought the Messiah would die for our salvation. Christ was telling the unbelievers who wanted to only Eat that day, he was going to fulfill the Passover, on Passover.
How you reduce that spiritual truth couched in metaphor… that obvious fulfillment of the shadow of passover for the reality of Christ dying for our sins, to literally eating Jesus.. as if an actual literal body would somehow make you Holy is *Literally beyond belief. Because we don’t see any evidence of this superior holiness in your institution.
Nice James, it is good to see you deny the real precence of Jesus in the eucharist, even though the early christians,most of whom were immediate diciples of the apostles of Jesus, believed in the real precence.Most protestants today think they are smarter than the very early christians on spiritual issues like this.It is sad to see people imagine themselves to be expounding the decrees of heaven whereas in actual fact they are only expresing their wild imaginations on what the bible is actually saying. To deny the real precence would have resulted in being branded a heretic and an outcast in the time of the early church!
Great blog, got the right information about church that is necessary for all of us. Lord is one” as defined
by Holy Scripture and the early Church Fathers as the: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Keep sharing more.
Paul fought against heretics in the church, and most turned away from Paul in the end, and so he asked if had he become their enemy for telling them the truth. Jesus Christ commanded the early church to repent of their heresies in the book of Revelation. It only takes a moment for a heresy to take hold, and the “Church Fathers” quoted here were hundreds of years after Paul.
The “Church fathers” quoted here are not authoritative, none of their writings were called holy scripture. Yet we have Paul’s writings which were considered scripture.
Jesus Christ clearly taught that to eat his flesh and to drink his blood were to keep his commandments. That is what it means, as his meat was to do his Father’s will, so for us, our meat, is to do his will. John 6:56 KJV 1 John 3:24 KJV Job 23:12 KJV
Hebrews clearly teaches that he offered himself once, not to be offered again, and Paul clearly writes that Jesus is going to physically return to earth the second time to those that look for his appearing.
The angels told the men of Galilee the same thing, that he would return in like manner as he left, in the clouds.
The Eucharist, is a heresy, it goes against holy scripture. Jesus Christ doesn’t return until that great and terrible day. Not every Sunday.
Sorry mate, the early church disagreed with you. If the earliest students of Paul turned away and got it wrong in your eyes, that is a major problem, because those same people who turned away are also the ones who identified which books should be considered scripture. Further, they also had much better access to the information than you do, so even if they “turned away,” that still makes them the most likely to be true.
As can be seen from the thousands of different views among people who simply “look to the Bible,” reading the Bible yourself is not a reliable way of getting to the truth.
You also have no authroity to determine what is heresy and what isn’t.
Are you telling me in the first 1,000 years the Eucharist was placed in the tabernacle and worshipped ?—-i dont think so
Lets take a real good look at these commentaries
tertullian—-this is my body,that is the symbol of my body…
Clement Of Alexandria—-the scriptures ,according has named wine the symbol of his sacred blood…
Origen—we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread we call eucharist
justin martyr—-the bread which christ gave us in remembrance of his body….he taught us in the eucharist IN COMMEMORATION of his blood
Cypriani—-the cup of the lord is a representation…
Augustine….Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated,yet it must be spritually understood….he comited and delivered to the disciples the figure(symbol) of his body and blood
All councils in the 2nd millenium ARE NOT ECUMENICAL. even the roman catholic church and her theologians new this(see norman tanner^s book on Church Councils). After trent,bellarmine pushed for the second milenium councils to be ecumenical,another distortion or falsehood so common in our Roman Catholic faith
Even trent had to overcome Augustines view on the eucharist
Conclusion–many protestant churches believe in the real presence but attribute it symbolically as most christians in the first millenium.it ceases to be ordinary bread and wine but it is not the actual body and blood of christ but a representative or figure.
Read the headaches a priest had to go thru on account of aquinas if a fly fell into the cup or a crumb of bread fell to the floor after consecration
theres evidence that the original eucharist was a meal celebrated amongst believers and not some piece of bread consecrated. theres even debate that christ never instituted the eucharist. the gospel of john mentions nothing of it in its details of the last supper and earlier versions of luke have the words”do this in memory of me” missing..recieve the eucharist in thanksgiving and to imitate christ,whether you believe in a literal or symbolic presence is not needed.just believe he is present
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).
Origen
“Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Here’s figure in Greek:
μορφή
form, shape, figure, look, carping, obloquy
Raised Roman Catholic and educated 1-12 in an exceptional Catholic School (Sisters of the Immaculate Heart). I have a question for which I have never found an answer. I fully believe in the Transubstantiation. My question lies in a practical manner. Following the Last Supper/Resurrection/Pentecost……disciples followed Jesus’ command to go and make disciples throughout the world. At the same time, worship, prayer and following Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of Me”…..the disciples did so in their homes/gathering in small groups often hidden from detection. There could not have been an ordained priest in each of these circumstances…yet…they were following the directive of our Lord. At what point in Church History did it become necessary for an ordained Priest to speak the words of Consecration and/or have Elements that had been so blessed?
Whether you approach this question from the Greek or Hebrew side, the result supports the notion of the Real Presence. When Paul quotes Jesus as saying eis ten emen anamnesin, he understands the meaning both in Greek and Hebrew senses. When Jesus said, “do this eis ten emen anamensin,” he was not saying to simply remember him. He was telling his twelve apostles to perform the same actions that he did in order to bring the reality of him back to this world.
The Apostles themselves were the priests. The reason priests must be ordained is so that they are part of Apostolic succession. That is, to make sure they are in the line of the Apostles’ authority. I think you can see why the Apostles do not need to be ordained so that they can be part of Apostolic succession.
Do you always edited what people say so they conform to your beliefs? This is exactly what you did here in this article about the early church fathers. You called Tertullian heretic. You did not mention Didache , where are the elements of the Lord supper where to be all to me understood spiritual food and drink. Clement of Alexandria call the bread and wine and symbols. Eusebius was another. so there wasn’t a unanimous believe by the early church fathers.
Hello David, it is typical for defenders of the “real presence” to take the early writers out of context. I do not think they are being malicious, but in error. They should not be teaching topics that they are clearly inept in. For example, here is a line from the Didascalia Apostolorum c. 200, “…and offer an acceptable Eucharist, the likeness of the royal body of Christ…”. The bread represents Jesus, plain and simple. Jesus was not preaching that we should literally eat him.
Uh, wait a second… A “likeness” is not a “representation.” Those are two very different things.
Hi Corbin, I’m going to inform you, gently, that you are incorrect.. Source: a dictionary. Another source: a thesaurus. I hope this helps. Peace and blessings.
Joe
I think people have problems with simple reading comprehension when they read the early church fathers writings on the real presence.Why do they dispute what is generally clear concerning church fathers support for the real presence? Why must we force ourselves against the fact that Jesus is really present in the eucharist as advocated by the early Christian fathers and scriptures? The fathers said what they knew safely came from Jesus because they were not far away from Him in time. We say what we know come from our wild interpretation of scripture .I feel funny at people’s desperation to capitalise and scramble upon sketchy bits of misguided hints from the fathers writings which they feel support their view.People spring at words like symbol, figure,memorial etc to sway the support of the early church fathers, but neglect the clear and precise quotes in their writings that point to the real presence.We in the Catholic church have nothing to fear from words like symbol, figure ,memorial etc and we can meaningfuly apply them to the issue of the real presence but their meaning does not contradict the eucharistic presence.We can use these words for the eucharist precisely on the fact that we are humans and the bread will still be bread so it is like a symbol on the human perspective.As for memorial, the eucharistic sacrifice is also for commemorating the lord’s suffering.Why should the church fathers teach us the non-precence in a very obscure and clumsy manner when they were capable of telling us plainly in simple straight to the point sentences about our Lord’s non-precence in the eucharist? The simple answer is that the church fathers used simple straight forward statements to support the real presence in their writings and used words like symbols, memorials etc at will because they never knew someone someday would twist their terms for his own destruction.In any case non- presence wasn’t an issue then and unheard of.
The church fathers overwhelmingly wrote that the Eucharist is a symbol, likeness, and\or representation of King Jesus. You and I agree on that part. Somehow, you take those explicit statements to mean that the bread is the body, soul, and divinity of Jesus? To eat him literally? Sir, you are not in the position to lecture anyone on reading comprehension. I pray that one day you will have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Catholic Cannibals?
The charge of cannibalism does not hold water for at least three reasons. First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way.
Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral.
Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word.
Not Metaphorically Speaking
If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience seems to have been fully aware of it.
When we examine the surrounding context of John 6:53, Jesus’ words could hardly have been clearer. In verse 51, he plainly claims to be “the living bread” that his followers must eat. And he says in no uncertain terms that “the bread which I shall give . . . is my flesh.” Then, when the Jews were found “disput[ing] among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” in verse 52, he reiterates even more emphatically, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
Compare this with other examples in Scripture when followers of the Lord are confused about his teaching. In John 4:32, Jesus says: “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” The disciples thought Jesus was speaking about physical food. Our Lord quickly clears up the point using concise, unmistakable language in verse 34: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (see also Matthew 16:5-12).
Moreover, when we consider the language used by John, a literal interpretation—however disturbing—becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, “eating.” However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey.
Then, in verse 61, it is no longer the Jewish multitudes, but the disciples themselves who are having difficulty with these radical statements of our Lord. Surely, if he were speaking symbolically, he would clear up the difficulty now among his disciples. Instead, what does Jesus do? He reiterates the fact that he meant just what he said: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (61-62). Would anyone think him to have meant, “What if you were to see me symbolically ascend?” Hardly! The apostles, in fact, did see Jesus literally ascend to where he was before (see Acts 1:9-10).
Finally, our Lord turns to the twelve. What he does not say to them is perhaps more important than what he does say. He doesn’t say, “Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically.” Rather, he says to them, “Will you also go away?” (v. 67). This most profound question from our Lord echoes down through the centuries, calling all followers of Christ in a similar fashion. With St. Peter, those who hear the voice of the Shepherd respond: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v. 68).
Spirit vs. Flesh
John 6:63 is the one verse singled out by Protestant apologists to counter much of what we have asserted thus far. After seeing the Jews and the disciples struggling with the radical nature of his words, our Lord says to the disciples and to us all: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Protestants claim Jesus here lets us know he was speaking symbolically or “spiritually” when he said “the spirit gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” See? He is not giving us his flesh to eat because he says “the flesh is of no avail.” How do we respond? We can in several ways.
1) If Jesus was clearing up the point, he would have to be considered a poor teacher: Many of the disciples left him immediately thereafter because they still believed the words of our Lord to mean what they said.
2) Most importantly, Jesus did not say, “My flesh is of no avail.” He said, “The flesh is of no avail.” There is a rather large difference between the two. No one, it is safe to say, would have believed he meant my flesh avails nothing because he just spent a good portion of this same discourse telling us that his flesh would be “given for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51, cf. 50-58). So to what was he referring? The flesh is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace.
For example, Christ said to the apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mk 14:38). According to Paul, if we are in “the flesh,” we are “hostile to God” and “cannot please God” (cf. Rom 8:1-14). In First Corinthians 2:14, he tells us, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” In First Corinthians 3:1, Paul goes on, “But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ.” It requires supernatural grace in the life of the believer to believe the radical declaration of Christ concerning the Eucharist. As Jesus himself said both before and after this “hard saying”: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn 6:44, cf. 6:65). Belief in the Eucharist is a gift of grace. The natural mind—or the one who is in “the flesh”—will never be able to understand this great Christian truth.
3) On another level very closely related to our last point, Christ said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail,” because he wills to eliminate any possibility of a sort of crass literalism that would reduce his words to a cannibalistic understanding. It is the Holy Spirit that will accomplish the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while being able simultaneously to distribute his body and blood in the Eucharist for the life of the world. A human body, even a perfect one, apart from the power of the Spirit could not accomplish this.
4) That which is spiritual does not necessarily equate to that which has no material substance. It often means that which is dominated or controlled by the Spirit.
One thing we do not want to do as Christians is to fall into the trap of believing that because Christ says his words are “spirit and life,” or “spiritual,” they cannot involve the material. When speaking of the resurrection of the body, Paul wrote: “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). Does this mean we will not have a physical body in the resurrection? Of course not. In Luke 24:39, Jesus made that clear after his own Resurrection: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
The resurrected body is spiritual, and indeed we can be called spiritual as Christians inasmuch as we are controlled by the Spirit of God. Spiritual in no way means void of the material. That interpretation is more gnostic than Christian. The confusion here is most often based upon confusion between spirit—a noun—and the adjective spiritual. When spirit is used, e.g., “God is spirit” in John 4:24, it is then referring to that which is not material. However, the adjective spiritual is not necessarily referring to the absence of the material; rather, it is referring to the material controlled by the Spirit.
Thus, we could conclude that Jesus’ words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” have essentially a twofold meaning. Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle.
Hello, I never accused Catholics of being cannibals. That is my point. It is not literally the body and blood of Christ. Thus, no accusations of cannibalism exist.
To your second point, it is not symbolic of eating his literal flesh. Eat my flesh and drink my blood is an idiom. It is the symbolic language of coming to him and believing in him (John 6:35). Bread gives substance to life, and there is an association that Jesus gives the substance to everlasting life. So, the Eucharist is not literally eating Jesus, nor is it symbolic of eating his literal flesh. It is a ritual of a community of believers coming together in fellowship and giving thanks. Peace and blessings to you.
@ Saint Joe, you are interpreting Jesus’s words without fully understanding what he is saying. Someone pointed out to me the following. I hope it helps you too:
John 6:4 – Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 – Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 – there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 – 58 – Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Those who protest Jesus’ words can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically, when he was clearly not.
John 6:23-53 – however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like many of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. One cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 – as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 – Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”
John 6:63 – Many argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, they must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 – many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.
Also, Martin Luther believed in the real presence, not a symbolic one, of Jesus’ body and blood in the bread and the wine:
******* “[Christ] speaks much more clearly still when He brings in the mention of the cup, saying: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” (1 Cor. xi.) Does He not seem to have meant to keep us within the bounds of simple faith, just so far as to believe that His blood is in the cup?
If, for my part, I cannot understand how the bread can be the body of Christ, I will bring my understanding into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and firmly believe, in simple adherence to His word, not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ.
For so shall I be kept safe by his words, where it is said: “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and said, Take, eat, this (that is, this bread, which He had taken and broken) is my body.” Paul also says: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
He does not say that the communion is in the bread, but that the bread itself is the communion of the body of Christ.”
******* From Page 160 of the following book by Martin Luther:
FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION
OR THE NINETY-FIVE THESES AND THE THREE PRIMARY WORKS
OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
WITH THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS
By HENRY WACE D.D.
PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S PREACHER OF LINCOLN’S INN PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE LONDON CHAPLAIN TO THK ARCHBISHOP OF CANTEKBURT
AND
C. A. BUCHHEIM Ph.D.
PROFESSOR OF THE GERMAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN KING’S COLLEGE LONDON
WITH A PORTRAIT.
PHILADELPHIA LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY
No. 42 NORTH NINTH STREET
1885
From Martin Luther’s small catechism:
“What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.”
“Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul write:Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: ‘Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.’
In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ “
Jesus said I am the bread of life, therefore He is bread.
If this is true, then Jesus is actually a light. He is actually a door for sheep. He is actually a shepherd and a vine.
I don’t believe anyone thinks Jesus is really a vine or a physical door. As others have said, Jesus spoke with some metaphors.
I don’t hear too many people trying to physically graph themselves into Jesus like you would a vine.