Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
This two-part post is intended to provide an initial response to such assertions.
The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Table. Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
In discussing the Lord’s Table from the perspective of church history, at least two important questions arise. First, did the early church believe that the elements (the bread and the cup) were actually and literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ? In other words, did they articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation as modern Roman Catholics do? Second, did early Christians view the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or put another way, did they view it in the terms articulated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent?
In today’s post, we will address the first of those two questions.
Did the Early Church Fathers Hold to Transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic teaching that in the eucharist, the bread and the cup are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Here are several quotes from the church fathers, often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.
Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).
Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).
Irenaeus again: “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).
Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).
Origen (182–254): “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’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).
Augustine (354–430): “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).
How should we think about such statements?
Obviously, there is no disputing the fact that the patristic authors made statements like, “The bread is the body of Christ” and “The cup is the blood of Christ.” But there is a question of exactly what they meant when they used that language. After all, the Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words.
But what did they mean when they used the language of Christ to describe the Lord’s Table? Did they intend the elements to be viewed as Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Or did they see the elements as symbols and figures of those physical realities?
In answering such questions, at least two things ought to be kept in mind:
* * * * *
1. We ought to interpret the church fathers’ statements within their historical context.
Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).
In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
* * * * *
2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s Table.
We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.
At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:
The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).
Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:
For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).
Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).
And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).
A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s physical body.
At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.
Next week, in part 2, we will consider whether or not the church fathers regarded the Lord’s Table as a propiatory sacrifice (as the Council of Trent defines it) or as simply a memorial offering of thanksgiving.
Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. I believe it; if you don't, that's your choice. It's as simple as that.
If my formatting is annoying, may that be the worst of the problems you have in your life! Life is too crazy to sweat the small stuff! : )
God bless you!
Amen and Amen!
Just as Jeremiah was told to eat the scroll right?
Yes it is indeed only Rome that makes an idol out of man made bread.. on that you are correct
God bless you!
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
That was written "after Jesus sacrificed himself".
>>He tells us to drink his blood<<
His blood was shed on the ground as was commanded for ALL sacrifices.
You can shout and scream about the Old Covenant and Old Sacrifices all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the Holy Spirit through the apostles said NOT to eat the blood. Christ said His words were spirit rather then physical and said the flesh profits nothing. We were told that some would not understand the spiritual aspect.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Christ said "my words are spirit".
You think these losers are more qualified than Cousin Billy Bob? At least Billy Bob would shoot the terrorist and not fornicate with his koran:
You guys teach in total contradiction of both the holy scripture and the church fathers. Heck, you teach in contradiction to what Papists taught and believed even just a century ago. Your claims of authority are shallow.
Here though is where the author of the OP (and apparently you and anyone else who agrees with this line of reason) err.
What the author is saying is, basically, that if the Fathers taught of a "spiritual Eucharist" (which they did) then that means they didn't teach that the Eucharist was really Jesus' Body and Blood.
In other words the error here is to say that something that is "spiritual" isn't really real, or that the only way something can be real is if it's "physically real"
Of course we know as people of faith, that spiritual things can be (and in fact are) just as real as physical things. So once we all stop making the axiomatic error of "the only real thing is a physical thing" the words of the Fathers become clearer, to whit: they believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, they simply believed He was/is really present in a spiritual sense.
Now it is true (as I've said on another thread) that indeed no Early Church Father explicitly taught the Dogma of Transubstantiation, however again as I said before this is not concerning as the Dogma wasn't defined until after all of the Fathers here had passed on. So it's not expected that any one (early) Father would have taught the entire dogma explicitly. But it's roots, it's foundation can certainly be found throughout their writjngs as a collective work, and certainly we at least see most taught the Eucharist was more than a mere symbol, rather that it is a "Sacrament", which is both a symbol and that which it symbolizes.
G2G...I do not "hate" Catholicism ..I pity those caught in her grasp.. I left because the more I read the scriptures the more I knew I could no longer affirm the apostasy of Rome from the scriptures.. I knew what they taught was false.I can not "leave "them alone in deception any more than I could leave a Mormon or a Buddhist .
Did you read the article?
That is my only purpose .. I am hoping that some catholic eyes will be opened and they will go to the scriptures and see for themselves.. what God showed to me
That bread they eat is just bread..it has no special power.. it does not give them greater knowledge of Christ, it does not draw them to Him..it serves just 2 purposes.. it ties people to rome that think it is some magic only held by her.. and it makes lazy people think they can know christ and grow in him by just chewing a piece of bread..
There are not many "paths" to God..there is only one and that one is the cross of Christ..
All others are "sinking sand" ..
No my friend that is not Christ catholics put in their mouth.. it is an idol made with human hands . A saved man does not need a weekly (or daily) "refill" of Christ.. Christ lived in them and they live in Christ 24/7
I hope my friend that you read the entire gospel of John and see the Christ that the elect finds in the scriptures..
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance (anamnésis) of me.
Greek anamnésis - Definition: a recalling, remembrance, memory.
Well said brother..
Wait.....What????? The Catholic Church says they can merit eternal life? Say it ain't so Joe!!!! Catholics around here tell us all the time that they don't believe that they can merit eternal life. Now you go a show words of the Catholic Church that says they do? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!!
Actually that is a 20th century heresy that became popular
Scripture is very clear that mankind is no longer made in the "image" of God..after the fall in the garden we lost the image of God
Genesis tells us that the children of Adam were made in Adams sinful image
"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. "(genesis 5:3)
Remember that Jesus told the pharisees that they were like THEIR FATHER....THE DEVIL"??
John 8 43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
That my dear friend is why we must be born again .. born into the family of God..
I do not tell you this to hurt you, or to condemn you.. but because I really care about your eternity
Bingo
But the Catholics do and they even worship that cracker.
I need to sign off now, I haven't been well and was up all night. I thank you wholeheartedly for your kind post, because I believe you want what's best for me: Moms and nurses are like that- but I was away and found my way home once, and never have I looked back. I have all I need. I wouldn't trade my Faith for anything, and if God chooses to take me, I can face Him knowing I followed the path He gave me with all my heart! I love Him so, and i love Our Lady as well. I commend myself to Him!
May God bless you, and you grow in love of Him always! And may we all meet one day together in Heaven, praising, loving, and rejoicing in Him for all eternity!
Crudely? Hardly. Disrespectful and irreverent? Sure. Why should I respect that which is so provably false? Why should I revere that which is so profane? What hath light to do with darkness? But not so crude, unless 'old fart' is what you refer to, in which case I might recommend turning down the 'church lady' setting a notch or two... It is merely a colorful colloquialism (in the dictionary and everything), with a little more emphasis than 'old man' can contain.
As to hating the Roman church and her leader, of course I do. Whore of Babylon, false prophet, the whole 9 yards... She is diametrically opposed to Yeshua the Messiah, a wolf in sheep's clothing. If you are sufficiently robust in your faith, I would highly recommend a deep study in the profane - you will find much there that you will recognize as uncannily familiar. REPENT of it and find the truth.
I don't hate anyone, although I sometimes hate what they do.
Same here. Don't confuse my contempt for the counterfeit church with any such sentiment harbored against you personally...
Love God YHWH, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies. So if you follow Christ Yeshua the Messiah, you may hate what we do, but ya gotta love us!
Exactly right.
I see that you are new here (welcome, btw).
Sorry to hear you are tired. If you are tired because of the relatively lame comments I made concerning the fact that many are not going to believe as you believe just because you emphasize your belief rather than give solid scriptural proof, then you are in for lots of weariness here on FR. Lots.
You will grow very weary very quickly here though if your stance is that we should believe as you do just because you say so. And that it is a simple as that. It isn’t. And this isn’t just an annoyance in my life, souls may be in peril.
You have no idea what is going on in my life now. So to accuse me, as you have, that my life is simple and easy so that I am looking to pick on you for a problem I need to fix is so for off base that it can’t be measured! :)
I would lovingly suggest to you that you spend a few months just reading through these threads and learn something - about how to have a decent discussion, how not to, and some of the personalities involved. It will go a long way to your establishing any credibility on this forum. And so will biblical proofs of your position.
The post I was responding to contained words that Jesus DIDN’T SAY. You are not making any point by quoting words that Jesus did say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.