Eucharist?

[Eden]

The Christians who wrote about the Eucharist (and in all cases affirmed the Real Presence) before 500 A.D. were:

St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus of Lyon
St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Aphraates the Persian Sage
Serapion
St. Ephraim
St. Athanasius
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
St. Gregory of Nazianz
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ambrose of Milan
Egeria
St. Jerome
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine
Macarius the Magnesian
St. Leo I
St. Caesar of Arles
St. Fulgene of Ruspe

Quotes available here:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#ignatius

We have already gone over those who affirmed it. Who were the first deniers?

Thanks,
Tim

My apologies. I’ll check that out for you.

I am going to guess and hope that someone else may have more to add, but the deniers may have grown out of the Nestorian heresy of the 5th century which questioned the omnipotence of Christ. They questioned how the Incarnate Jesus could be present in the Eucharist all over the world. I’ll try to find detailed documentation about that.

An entry on Nestorianism at Wikipedia addresses the Christological implications of this heresy.

From the point of view of the Chalcedonian theology which is held by most Western and Orthodox churches, the teaching of Nestorius has important consequences relating to sotierology and the theology of the Eucharist.

During the Protestant Reformation, when some groups denied the Real Presence and the communication of attributes between the two natures, they were accused of reviving the heresy of Nestorius.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

 

[Mannyfit75]

I only find sources from the Reformers who deny the Blessed Eucharist.

This is what I got from my research.

Zwingli was active in extending the reform to other Swiss cities, such as Basel, Sankt Gallen, and Bern. He was involved in controversy not just with Catholic opponents, but also with the Lutheran reformers because he denied Christ’s real presence in any form in the Eucharist. The effort to reconcile the views of Zwingli and Luther at the Colloquy of Marburg (1529) failed. Zwingli also opposed the Anabaptists in Zurich who rejected infant baptism. He was killed on the battlefield of Kappel in 1531 when the Catholic cantons of southern Switzerland attacked Zurich.

 

[utunumsint]

Here is a quote from J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines(pg. 317-318)

The oppsosition to Nestorius found a brilliant, if far from scrupulous, mouthpiece in Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria. While jealousy of the upstart see of Constantinople sometimes made him adopt an uncharitable tone, he was basically inspired by concern for theological truth. As he understood it, Nestorius’s teaching, epitomized in his attack on Theotokos, presupposed a merely external association between the Word and and ordinary man. From this point of view the incarnation became an illusion, a matter of ‘appearance’ and ‘empty words’. The redemption was undermined, since Christ’s sufferings and saving acts were, presumably, not those of God incarnate but of one who was a mere man. Similarly the conception of Christ as the second Adam inagurating a new, regenerated race of mankind demanded, he thought, a much more intimate union of the Word with the flesh than Nestorius postulated. Above all, in his opinion Nestrius had deprived the eucharist of life giving force and reduced it to cannibalism, since on his premisses only he body of a man lay on the altar and the flesh consumed by the faithful was not truly vivified by the Logos.

Here is more on St Cyril of Alexandria and on Nestorius.

God bless,
Ut

More from Kelly on Justin, (pg 196-197)

It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfilment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, an the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which out Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do thi’ must have been charged with sacrifical overtones for second century ears; Justin at any rate undestood them to mean ‘Offer this’. (1 apol 66,3 and dialogue 41, I) If we inquire what the sacrifice was supposed to consist in, the Didache for its part provides no clear answer. Justin, however, makes it plain (dialogue 41, 3) that the bread and the wine themselves were the ‘pure offering’ fortold by Malachi (1:10). Even if h holds that ‘prayers and thanksgivings’ are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the Eucharistized bread and wine’. The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial of the passion’, a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Saviour’s passion.

More from Kelly on Ireneaus (pg 197)

Irenaeus’s thoughts (haer 4,17,4-6; 4,33,2; 5,2,2) moves along rather different lines and does not link the eucharist so closely with Christ’s atoning death. When the bread and wine are offered to God, he thinks of them primarily as first-fruits of the earth which Christ has instructed us to offer, not because the Father needs them, but that we may not be found unfruitful or ungrateful. This is ‘the oblation of the Church’, and is well pleasing to God as the expression of a sincere and faithful disposition. But the idea of the passion prevades this approach too, for Irenaeus identifies the gifts with Chrisst’s body and blood and describes them, in laguage reminiscent of the Lord’swords at the Last Supper, as ‘the oblation of the new covenant’.

 

[utunumsint]

More on Didache and Ignatius of Antioch from Kelly.

This leads us to consider the significance attached to the elements themselves in this period. From the Didache we gather that the bread and wine are ‘holy’; they are spiritual food and ddrink communicating immortal life. Ignatius roundly declares (Smyrn 6, 2) that ‘the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his godness raised up’. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood. (Rom 7,3). Clearly he intends this realism to be taken stricly, for he makes (Smyrn 6) it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of thereality of Christ’s body. Because the eucharist brings Christians into union with their Lord, it is the great bond between them; (Eph 13,1; Philad 4) and since it mediate communion with Christ, it is a medicine which procures immortality, an antidote against death which enables us to live in the Lord forever. (Eph 20, 2)

More on Fathers.

Justin actually refers to the changes. ‘We do not receive these’, he writes, (1 apol 66,2) ‘as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that teh food which has been echaristized by the word of prayer from Him (that food which by process of assimilation noureshes our flesh and blood) is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.’ So Irenaeus teaches (Haer Book 4, chapter 17:5; Book, chapter 18:4; Book 5 Chapter 2:3) that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostics and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a change, for he remarks: ‘Just as the bread, which comes from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but eucharist, being composed of two elements, a terrestrial one and a celestial, so our bodies are no longer commonplace when they receive the eucharist, since they have the hope of resurrection to eternity’. (Haer Book 4 chapter 18:5 and Book 5 Chatper 2:3.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Consubstantiation is different from the RCC view (I was to be a Lutheran pastor once upon a time).

True. But, I didn’t say that Martin Luther believed in transubstantion. I said that he believed in the Real Presence. Consubstantation is still an acknowledgement of Christ’s Real Presence in the consecrated bread and wine. This is a far cry from the Fundamentalist “bread is bread and wine is wine” position. It is also a Sacramental understanding rather than a symbolic understanding.

I have a long way to go before I can say I know the dominant view of any church period or how strong the dissent was.

Well, at least you’re willing to do the leg work. Go for it. You may be suprised at what you find.

 

[Timmy_Z]

Throughout the weekend I have running this through my head and discussing it with others.

John 6 - How could the eucharist have been the point of Jesus claims or what the disciples viewed it as considdering the lords supper wasn’t instituted for another three years? How could this listening in John 6 have thought of the lords supper since it was in the future?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[japhy]

John 6 - How could the eucharist have been the point of Jesus claims or what the disciples viewed it as considdering the lords supper wasn’t instituted for another three years? How could this listening in John 6 have thought of the lords supper since it was in the future?

I think the simplest answer is that it was a prophecy of the institution of the Eucharist.

 

[utunumsint]

John 6 - How could the eucharist have been the point of Jesus claims or what the disciples viewed it as considdering the lords supper wasn’t instituted for another three years? How could this listening in John 6 have thought of the lords supper since it was in the future?

Thanks,
Tim

There are many things that Jesus said throughout his life that the Apostles did not fully understand until after his crucifixion and resurection. Notice that John does not say that the Apostles understood this teaching. John says in John 6:66-69

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

They believed, but they didn’t understand until later.

Ut

 

[YADA]

John Chapter 6 is a Eucharistic passage in scripture. How can this be? The Gospel of John was written by a faith community for a faith community. The Gospel of John reflects the Eucharistic understanding of that faith community.

The Gospel of John is highly symbolic and illustrates a spirituality and theology that embodied the early Christian community and their understanding of who Jesus is. We have the Book of Genesis paralled in the first passages of John. The creation of the world and the beginning of salvation history with the first man Adam [Genesis] and the re-creation of a world newly formed and the fullfillmnet of salvation history witht he advent of the New Adam - Jesus [the Christ].

In John we have Jesus the Bride Groom to His Bride [the Church, a people of God].

John was not written as a history of the time of Jesus; nor is it a biography. The Gospel of John is a canonical and liturgical work. It espouses the beliefs of the people of faith and is proclaimed as such during the ‘public work’ [liturgy] of that faith community.

Therefore, that the Bread of Life Discourse occurs before the Last Supper is irrelevant. After all in John’s Gospel the Last Supper is the Washing of the Disciples Feet and not the Breaking of Bread.

And yet they [all four Gospels accounts of the Last Supper] are in fact one and the same…Pax Christe

 

[FCEGM]

In an article by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski in “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997) on the topic of the Eucharist, the author has some interesting - and I hope helpful - insights regarding Transubstantiation:

". . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation. Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just communicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. The Eucharist would fail to continue, sacramentally, the form of the Incarnation, and we would be deprived of the presence, the bodily presence, of the way, the truth, and the life. The Incarnation would have been withdrawn from the world.

"The Eucharist continues the Incarnation, but there are important differences between the two mysteries. In the Incarnation, when the Word becomes flesh, the divine nature does not transubstantiate the human nature. It does not take the place of the human being. To say that it did would fall into a monophysite or gnostic understanding of the Incarnation. To understand the Incarnation as a transubstantiation would imply that the human nature ceased to be but only appeared to be when united with the divine. Instead, the human substance, soul and body, is integrally present in the Incarnation. In this respect, the human substance in the Incarnation is different from the substance of bread in the Eucharist. The human substance, soul and body, remain intact, but the substance of the bread does not.

"Indeed, it is the very material and bodily quality of the Incarnation that calls for Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. If Christ is to be present in the sacrament, he must be present in his divine and human natures, in his soul and body. And if his body is to be present, the bread cannot be. The one thing cannot be two material substances, both bread and a human body, not even the glorified human body of Christ. If it is the one it cannot be the other. The two bodily natures exclude one another, and it is the bodily presence of Christ that is specifically emphasized in the words of consecration. The body of Christ is not with the bread but takes the place of the bread in the change we call Transubstantiation. If we deny this change, we deny the bodily presence of the glorified Christ, and hence we deny the presence of Christ. Without Transubstantiation the sacramental presence of Christ would not occur.

"Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence view the bread and wine used in the Eucharist to be given additional meaning in the same way. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, the bread takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s body, and the wine takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s blood. The bread and wine don’t literally change but instead take on a higher meaning within the context of the sacrament. Once the Eucharist is consumed and the sacrament is complete, the bread and wine lose the additional meanings they had during the ceremony and become simply bread and wine again.

So, Timmy, in the scenario you seem to prefer, it would be the community giving meaning to what has occurred, rather than Christ Himself. IOW, “We are doing this to remember Christ and we give this memorial the meaning of His presence among us, which meaning is no longer present when the service is finished” rather than, “Christ accomplishes this personally in the person of the priest, giving Himself without quarter.”

 

[YADA]

Timmy,

And unless i just missed your repeonse… *

I am still awaiting your discussion of St Paul’s understanding of the Eucharist. How does one eat something that is merely symbolic to the peril of their immortal soul?*

 

[maryj]

Timmy Z, I’m not sure if you get EWTN where you live, but if you can check out father Mitch Pacwas’ homilyduring daily Mass for march 20 you will hear a very educating, scriptural interpretation of the life giving waters that the Eucharist holds. How Jesus Christ fulfills the prophecy of Ezekial, how the Eucharist is the “Stream flowing from the temple” Ezekial 47…Father Mitch is absolutely amazing, he is so knowledgeable…please check it out…
The stream will make the water of the Dead Sea fresh, and wherever it flows, it will bring life.