Iᴋʟᴀ ᴛᴀʟ-Mᴜʟᴇᴊ – Pᴀʀᴛ 12
Our Catholic friends refer to writings of ‘church fathers’ to point out that they understood the Lord’s supper as a real presence of Christ and not just symbolic.
However, ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist wasn’t universally agreed upon as doctrine in the first century and one can find writings backing both versions.
Let us also not forget that false teachers had already arisen at the apostolic age: “and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” Acts 20:30
‘Church father’ writings obviously do not have the same weighting as scripture but are sadly an argument backing real presence in the Eucharist.
There could also be a misinterpretation of what some of these early writers meant. It is not surprising that Christ’s very own words: “This is My body” and “This is My blood” are echoed in early writings. 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. It was against this particular 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).
At the same time, however, some showed their understanding of the Lord’s Supper by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the bread and wine to be symbols which represented and commemorated the physical body and blood of the Lord:
1) 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 (160–225) 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 represented the physical body of Christ.
2) The 𝐃𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞, written in the late-first or early-second century:
Chapter 9 of the Didache speaks of ‘thanksgiving’ or the Eucharist, and gives absolutely no hint of transubstantiation.
Both Peter and Paul mention a spiritual sacrifice (praise and worship) in their letters. (1 Pt 2:5-9, Romans 12:1) Thus some quotations from early church writings that include the word “sacrifice” do not refer to a propitiatory sacrifice but to a sacrifice of praise. Many unsuspecting readers fall into this trap. Taking this quotation from the Didache chapter 14 as an example:
“But on the Lord’s day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted, for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles”
The context in the Didache is highly suggestive of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: ‘break bread and 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘴 …that your sacrifice may be pure.’
3) Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-211), Author of the “Paedagogus” (The Instructor), explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐥 of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
We find the following quoted from Clement’s writings by Catholic websites:
“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)
Catholics point out that Clement calls this a mystery. Would he call a symbol a mystery?
The part following ‘O amazing mystery’ is consistent with Paul’s teachings in Ephesians 4:21-24 and Colossians 3:9-10 – “put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires….and put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” and also to John Ch6 – the Bread of Life Discourse.
In fact Clement goes on to explain:
“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”
But since He said, “And the bread which I will give is My flesh,” and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh…
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ”𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle….
You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝; and to us infants, who 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 of the heavens, Christ Himself is food.
Thus in many ways the 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐤. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 represented as milk. For is it not 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word…”
4) Eusebius of Caesarea
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. (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76)
________________________________________
There wasn’t a unanimous understanding among the Fathers on the nature of the eucharistic elements. Some influential Church Fathers considered the bread and wine as sacred symbols of the body and blood of Jesus. Others did not.
The view of Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, etc was later formulated into the doctrine of transubstantiation by Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, who wrote: “The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense” (De corpore et sanguine Christi).
This controversy between these two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century.
As Christians we ultimately turn to Scripture for the final say, which clearly states in the book of Hebrews that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all – ‘the sacrifice of the mass’ goes against such teachings.
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑏𝑦 𝐷𝑟.𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑝ℎ 𝑀𝑖𝑧𝑧𝑖 (𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝐹𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛), 𝑁𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝐵𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑧 (𝐷𝑖𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛?) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝐶𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑛 (𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝐸𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)