Early Church Fathers - Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecone137
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thecone137

Guest
Hey all,

I was reading the recent post titled “Early Church Fathers - Protestant Style” and a john1968 (Protestant) pasted quotes( and info regarding ECF and the Eucharist(page 2). The post focused mostly on Papacy and never really addressed this issue: what he posted seemed to support the notion of a symbolic bread and wine, not literal. I have read Jimmy Atkin’s “Father’s Know Best” book, which has many ECF quotes supporting a literal meaning, so could someone explain to me john1968’s quotes and information? I have pasted what he said below.
  1. There was no transubstantiation:
“It is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God. Therefore, we read… “Offer to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest your vows.” Thus accordingly, the spiritual “sacrifices of praise” are pointed to.”– Tertullian (197 A.D.)

“The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl mixed wine, which is the symbol of the blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.” – Hyppolytus (225 A.D.)

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought out symbols when he said: “He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith…”” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

““Eat my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers…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…” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)
 
I did read that link in the other thread, and it does a good job of explaining, from a biblical perspective, the ECF quotes who did support a literal meaning. What I am basically asking is about is the ECF’s who spoke of it as symbolic(quotes from above). Did they mean that in a different way for a different audience? Was there some historic reason? I hope this helps clarify.

God bless.
 
You’ll often find Early Church Fathers affirming the symbolism of the Eucharist, which is because the Eucharist is symbolic.

The species of bread and wine physically resemble the Body and Blood of Christ. Likewise, in giving Himself to us under the species of bread and wine, Jesus signals that He’s the One who sustains us and nourishes us.

The Church Fathers also pointed out that bread and wine are metabolized. That in eating them, they become part of your body. So in eating the Flesh and Blood of Christ, the Living Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, we are “metabolized,” so to speak, into the Body of Christ. This is what Paul seems to allude to in 1 Cor. 10:17.

So someone saying that the Eucharist is symbolic isn’t problematic. Baptism is also symbolic, since the form of water symbolizes visibly what’s done invisibly. It’s only problematic if they say that it’s ONLY symbolic.

Let’s take those Fathers you mentioned one at a time:

I. Tertullian
This is from Chapter 19 of On Prayer:
Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations [these were fasting days], 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.
Click to expand...
So Tertullian acknowledges the Eucharist as the Lord’s Body, and says it’s offered at “God’s altar.” He also calls it a participation in the Sacrifice. Protestants deny all three of these things.

II. Hippolytus
In this fragment of his writings, Hippolytus argues for the Real Presence on the basis of Proverbs 9:1-6:
And to those that want understanding she said"—that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost—“Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you;” by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.
Click to expand...
III. Clement of Alexandria
In Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, Clement writes:
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And **to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; **the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.
Click to expand...
That’s about as clear as you can get, I think.

So, as you can see, all of the Church Fathers quoted believed that the Eucharist symbolized Christ, *and *that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ. Catholicism affirms both of these propositions, Protestantism doesn’t. So it’s hard to see these Fathers as being a challenge to the Catholic side.
 
NoelFitz said:
I am a bit concerned to read about the bread and wine being symbols in the Eucharist.

One must be careful.
Click to expand...
Noel,

We’re not saying that they’re *only *symbols, or even that their importance is drawn primarily from the symbolism. We’re just acknowledging that there’s a reason that regenerative Baptism is done using water, rather than mud, and that there’s a reason that the Eucharist is partaking of Something that resembles bread and wine rather than, say, wearing a hat.
 
thecone137 said:
Hey all,

I was reading the recent post titled “Early Church Fathers - Protestant Style” and a john1968 (Protestant) pasted quotes( and info regarding ECF and the Eucharist(page 2). The post focused mostly on Papacy and never really addressed this issue: what he posted seemed to support the notion of a symbolic bread and wine, not literal. I have read Jimmy Atkin’s “Father’s Know Best” book, which has many ECF quotes supporting a literal meaning, so could someone explain to me john1968’s quotes and information? I have pasted what he said below.
  1. There was no transubstantiation:
“It is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God. Therefore, we read… “Offer to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest your vows.” Thus accordingly, the spiritual “sacrifices of praise” are pointed to.”– Tertullian (197 A.D.)

“The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl mixed wine, which is the symbol of the blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.” – Hyppolytus (225 A.D.)

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought out symbols when he said: “He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith…”” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

““Eat my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers…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…” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)
Click to expand...
Not a single one of these quotes denies that the Eucharist has the real presence. To say the Eucharist is symbolic DOES NOT exclude substantial presence. In fact, in Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium Fidei, he writes:*To confirm what we have said by examples, it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the “communal” Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ’s presence in this sacrament.*The Eucharist is substantially Christ’s body and there are also aspects that are symbolic of Christ’s body, like how the grains of wheat symbolize the many members of the body of Christ coming together to form one body (see Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #23)

Furthermore, if there actually were ECFs who explicitly denied a real presence in the Eucharist, they would only be considered in conjunction with a vast abundance of ECFs who did teach the real presence. Catholics have a way of resolving dispute like this, as did the Church in Acts 15. Councils can be held and the Church trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the true apostolic successors. If your friend props up some ECFs over others, then your friend must give cause–by what authority does he ignore the ECFs who clearly teach a real presence?
 
Also worth keeping in mind that Tertullian, for one, fell into heresy - it’s important to know not only what he wrote but when he wrote it.

And the writings of the ECF are not dogmatic, obviously, so the fact that one might disagree with another would not necessarily prove one right and the other wrong.

john1968 has a seriously anti-catholic agenda, he’s just throwing stuff up against the wall in hope that something will stick. . . .
 
They actually have no leg to stand on. One of the earliest of the fathers makes it all very clear, not to mention Our Lord in John 6 and St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 10 & 11.

Take a look at this thread. The Eucharist IS Scriptural!
 
You also have to remember that when the early Church talks about “symbols”, they don’t necessarily mean the same thing we do. For example, the Nicene Creed was literally called “the Nicene Symbol”.

A “symbolon” in Greek was a special token of identification. For example, you might break a coin in half, give half to the owner of something being left with you, and keep the other half with the thing being left. Years later, the person with half a coin – or somebody you gave it, to collect it for you — could collect what was left with the other half.

“Symbolon” also came to mean a password given to soldiers, so you could tell who was on your side and who wasn’t. So the “Nicene Symbolon” let you tell who was an orthodox Christian, and who wasn’t. (And that’s why “symbolum” is a Latin word for creed.) A “symbolon” also came to mean an outward sign of genuineness, something you could believe.

The meaning “something which stands for something else” didn’t show up in English until 1590 in Spenser’s Faerie Queene. Greek had other words for that concept, and they had technical meanings. If a translator goes with just “symbols” for that, it’s awfully vague.

So when you read things in the Fathers like “the Lord brought out symbols”, it probably means something more like “the Lord brought out recognizable proofs of His promises, which He then distributed among the disciples, and which would allow them to collect eternal life”. Most likely, the idea was that by eating the “symbolum” given to them, the apostles were presenting their ID and collecting eternal life.

The other thing to remember is that using this kind of imagery for the Sacrament doesn’t mean denying all other ways of talking about it, or that the author doesn’t believe it really is the Body and Blood. Greek rhetoric encouraged the use of poetic imagery whenever you talked about anything, much less anything important. Just as today, if you’re writing a homily you’re bound to end up explaining doctrines from every different angle you can find, so they used different kinds of imagery to do the same thing. Describing Jesus as the “Lamb of God” in the Bible didn’t mean He couldn’t also be described as a “carpenter”. Nobody is sitting around complaining that lambs don’t have hands and can’t do carpentry.

Of course, a lot depends on who’s translating what, in what way. It’s useful to see the actual passage.
 
Mintaka, your explanation above is worth bookmarking. Thank you.

-Tim-
 
=thecone 137 Hey all,
Click to expand...
I was reading the recent post titled “Early Church Fathers - Protestant Style” and a john1968 (Protestant) pasted quotes( and info regarding ECF and the Eucharist(page 2). The post focused mostly on Papacy and never really addressed this issue: what he posted seemed to support the notion of a symbolic bread and wine, not literal. I have read Jimmy Atkin’s “Father’s Know Best” book, which has many ECF quotes supporting a literal meaning, so could someone explain to me john1968’s quotes and information? I have pasted what he said below.
Click to expand...
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought out symbols when he said: “He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith…”” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)
Click to expand...
““Eat my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers…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…” – Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)
Click to expand...
SEE BELOW!

**REPLY:**None of the people you quote would have ever heard the term. It was introduced about 1,000 years ago!

(a) The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139),

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (the Didache), 9:2; 14:1, circa 90 A.D.: ****Regarding the Eucharist … Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too, the saying of the Lord is applicable: Do not give to dogs what is sacred.

**Clement of Rome (80 A.D.) in Corinthians 36:1 refers to the Eucharist as the ``offering of the gift.’’ **St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians, 40:

"]St. Clement of Alexandria,/COLOR] **202 A.D.: **The **Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His Immortality. the strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. [20,1] Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, --of the drink and of the Word,–is called Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word." **

**St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4,17,5:**On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations. [Mal 1:11,14].

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt)“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

We take anxious care lest something of our Cup of Bread should fall upon the ground.

Origen, Contra Celsum, AD 211]:
We are not people with ungrateful hearts; it is true, we do not sacrifice … to such beings who, far from bestowing their benefits upon us, are our enemies; but to God who has bestowed upon us an abundance of benefits … we fear being ungrateful. The sign of this gratitude towards God is the bread called Eucharist.

**There was never a doubt about the Real Presence by the Early Fathers.

There is an abundance of Historical evidence pointing to this reality.**

God Bless,
Pat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top