Eucharist, Church Fathers

[Assyrian412]

Hey all, so I’ve been following Catholic Answers for a while now and they have seemed to always point out that the Early Fathers were unanimous on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I found this article, written by a protestant, attempting to prove that the early Fathers actually looked at it symbolically. Many of the proofs of the real presence seem to be refuting gnostics who did not believe Jesus actually came in the flesh; but it seems like this could be interpreted to mean that the Eucharist could not be symbolically said to be the flesh of Christ if Christ had no flesh…

Anyway, if anybody could make sense of the quotes from the following article and explain what these Fathers really meant, it would help me out. I would greatly appreciate it.

I assume the context is key but I am not very familiar with debates about the Eucharist so I figured somebody could help. Here it is…

onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/comment-page-1230/#comments

 

[Gorgias]

Assyrian,

Thanks for the citation! It looks like an interesting blog post to read and ponder (plus, it gives incentive to re-read Clement!).

One quick note, before I go off to do the reading: the blogger asserts that, based on Clement, the early Church considered the Eucharist the Body of Jesus only figuratively. However, I think he’s misconstruing Clement. His first quote is the end of a very long paragraph in which Clement compares the Church to a nursing mother and Jesus as the milk given to the children (i.e., us) for growth. He then follows with the quote that the blogger provides. In other words, Clement has asserted that Jesus is the ‘milk’ we consume for our benefit, and then he identifies that this ‘milk’ is the Eucharist. (Pretty strong defense of the Real Presence, there!)

But, in the following paragraph – which the blogger quotes! – Clement says, “OK… if you’re not used to thinking about the Eucharist in that way, then let’s also give you a figurative description.” It’s not that the literal description isn’t true, or even deficient. Rather, Clement is adding another way to look at it: a figurative expression that demonstrates that we receive the Holy Spirit (i.e., grace) when we receive the life-giving Blood of Christ.

It’s important to recall the distinction between the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools of thought (Clement was Alexandrian). The Antiochian school was very literal; the Alexandrian was prone to seek allegorical themes. Therefore, when we see Clement proposing a figurative explanation, it’s necessary to remember that he’s just doing what he and his confreres did all the time – to interpret through allegory. It’s not that they denied the realities that the Church taught; it’s only that they preferred to express them in various ways, utilizing allegorical figures to aid in their catechesis.

So, when we read Clement talking about figurative understandings, we recognize that he’s not saying “it’s only figurative and not literal”, but rather, “let’s see if I can’t explain this to you using some allegories.”

The blogger keeps insisting, “see! Clement speaks in metaphors!” Why yes, yes he does. That was his oeuvre. It’s pretty funny – the blogger himself admits that the Church recognized that Clement was prone to use metaphors, and that some were concerned that the metaphors went too far. And yet, he still wants to say “see! the Church believed in a purely metaphorical explanation!”

Hope that helps…!

Blessings,
G.

 

[Assyrian412]

Thank you

God bless !

 

[po18guy]

Applying William of Ockham’s razor, what Jesus said in John 6 is best taken at face value - especially since our Lord allowed believers to walk away. However, look at the last supper discourses. Remember here that when He said “This is My Body” and “This is the New Testament in My Blood”, it was when He stopped speaking to them in parables and spoke to them plainly (John 16:29). Since He was not speaking in parables, how can we take His words to be anything other than literal? How on earth could our Lord teach something that could even potentially be idolatry? He does not lead away from Himself, but always toward Himself.

And this is disregarding Paul’s teaching on unworthy reception of the Eucharist making one guilty of the Body and Blood; his admonishment that unworthy reception (minus an examination of conscience) amounted to eating and drinking of damnation unto oneself! For a symbol? What an utterly dangerous religion, if that was the case! Paul did not write that the Eucharist was a symbol, but rather a “participation” in the Body and Blood of the Lord. Ponder that. You participate. In Peter’s words you partake of the Divine Nature.

But, we are being academic here, when we should be spiritual. Your proof will be found in the actual presence of Christ. You are seeking the Truth and that Truth will not be denied you. My heartfelt advice is to contact your local Catholic parish and ask when they offer adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Go, and spend time in His presence. Look at him and allow Him to look at you. Tell him of your doubts. It takes great faith to look upon what appears to be bread and believe that it is Christ present sacramentally.

Be as patient with Him as He has been with you. Revelation and conversion are not generally instantaneous - but can be. When the Holy Spirit confirms the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you will be eternally changed. You will be infused with the peace that surpasses all understanding. Miracles will likely occur. Really.

“Help my unbelief!” will not go unanswered.

 

[Wesrock]

The Church was not really hesitant about speaking of the Eucharist as a figure or a symbol, because it is both, but not in the “only a symbol” or “only a figure of speech” sense. Certainly we see and feel and taste the species of bread and wine, even if we believe that Christ is present in a mysterious way. The Eucharist is a sign. It’s been more wary with language since the shattering of the body of Christ such that people deny the real presence.

Certainly it can be said to be a figure. In John 6, Jesus clearly didn’t want his followers to rush him and rip him limb from limb like a bunch of walkers from the Walking Dead. Nor do we believe Christ is present in the Eucharist in a way that puts him there in a place. We do eat Christ’s body and blood, but not in a quantitative way, where this piece of the host is his head, and this piece his arm, or any such sense. A bigger host is not more of Christ. He is not broken down or torn when we eat the Eucharist. And that is a great mystery of faith, that Christ is still fully present and received.

I would love to give the article more time, but those are some quick thoughts.

 

[1pppp]

Ken Johnson . book. What the ancient fathers taught. Describes the development of the “real presence” doctrine. And if the catholic
commun ion actually imparted the spiritual anointing. There would be many more conversions. .this author wrote 26 books. Without any real critical review. It is an eye opener. Also on utibe.

 

[Lucretius]

Here’s a story by the Desert Fathers that addresses your question head on:

This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, ‘Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete he was deceived and said, ‘The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.’ Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, ‘Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we received is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.’ The old man said, ‘It is I who have said that.’ Then the old men exhorted him saying, ‘Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ and that the cup itself is his blood and this in all truth and not a symbol. But as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ.’ The old man said to them, ‘As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced.’ So they said, ‘Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us.’ The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed these words, ‘Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ.’ The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, ‘Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward.’ God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold and angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child’s blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angle also cut the child into pieces. When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of the bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, ‘Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood.’ Immediately the flesh which he held in his hand became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, ‘God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith.’ Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labor. So all three returned with joy to their own cells.”

I don’t see how this story, written in the 200s, could be interpreted to support “Eucharistic symbolism,” as it directly refutes the view.

Christi pax.