G
gmk
Guest
Is anyone familiar with Origen’s writings. Did he ever teach directly about the Eucharist?
- Status
J
John_Mortell
Guest
I’m not too familiar with Origen’s writings, so I googled a bit on it:
“Because therefore Jesus is wholly clean, His whole flesh is food, and His whole blood is drink, because every work of His is holy and every WORD of His is true. Therefore also His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink. For by the flesh and blood OF HIS WORD as clean food and drink He gives drink and refreshment to the whole race of men.” (Origen, In Lev Hom 7:5; cf. 13:6)
“Now we are said to drink the blood of Christ NOT ONLY in the way of Sacraments, but ALSO when we receive HIS WORDS, in which life consists as also He Himself said, ‘The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.’ Therefore He Himself was wounded, whose blood we drink, THAT IS, receive the WORDS of His teaching.” (Origen, In Num Hom 16:9)
“That bread which God the Word confesses to be His own body is the WORD that nourishes souls, the WORD proceeding from God the Word… and that drink which God the Word confesses to be His blood is the WORD that gives drink and excellent gladness to the hearts of those who drink…For not that visible bread which He held in His hands did God the Word call His body, but the WORD in the mystery of which that bread was to be broken. Nor did He call that visible drink His blood, but the WORD in the mystery of which that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of God the Word, or His blood, be but the WORD which nourishes and the WORD which gladdens the heart?” (Origen, In Matt Comm Ser 85)
“Let the bread and the cup be understood by the more SIMPLE according to the more COMMON acceptation of the Eucharist, BUT by those who have learnt to hear more DEEPLY according to the more divine promise, even that of the nourishing WORD of the truth.” (Origen, In Joann 32:24[16])
bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm
…We learn from the writings of Justin, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, as well as from the most ancient Liturgies, that it was always the bishops and priests, and they alone, who appeared as the property constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, and that the deacons merely acted as assistants in these functions, while the faithful participated passively therein. (no source provided here).
newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit [baptism]. 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.’ [John 6: 55] (*Homilies on Numbers 7:2; *about 248 A.D.)
catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist2b.htm
“Because therefore Jesus is wholly clean, His whole flesh is food, and His whole blood is drink, because every work of His is holy and every WORD of His is true. Therefore also His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink. For by the flesh and blood OF HIS WORD as clean food and drink He gives drink and refreshment to the whole race of men.” (Origen, In Lev Hom 7:5; cf. 13:6)
“Now we are said to drink the blood of Christ NOT ONLY in the way of Sacraments, but ALSO when we receive HIS WORDS, in which life consists as also He Himself said, ‘The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.’ Therefore He Himself was wounded, whose blood we drink, THAT IS, receive the WORDS of His teaching.” (Origen, In Num Hom 16:9)
“That bread which God the Word confesses to be His own body is the WORD that nourishes souls, the WORD proceeding from God the Word… and that drink which God the Word confesses to be His blood is the WORD that gives drink and excellent gladness to the hearts of those who drink…For not that visible bread which He held in His hands did God the Word call His body, but the WORD in the mystery of which that bread was to be broken. Nor did He call that visible drink His blood, but the WORD in the mystery of which that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of God the Word, or His blood, be but the WORD which nourishes and the WORD which gladdens the heart?” (Origen, In Matt Comm Ser 85)
“Let the bread and the cup be understood by the more SIMPLE according to the more COMMON acceptation of the Eucharist, BUT by those who have learnt to hear more DEEPLY according to the more divine promise, even that of the nourishing WORD of the truth.” (Origen, In Joann 32:24[16])
bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm
…We learn from the writings of Justin, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and others, as well as from the most ancient Liturgies, that it was always the bishops and priests, and they alone, who appeared as the property constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, and that the deacons merely acted as assistants in these functions, while the faithful participated passively therein. (no source provided here).
newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit [baptism]. 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.’ [John 6: 55] (*Homilies on Numbers 7:2; *about 248 A.D.)
catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist2b.htm
M
moira
Guest
gmk, I found this in The Faith of the Early Fathers vol. 1…
That which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not of its very nature sanctify him who avails himself of it. If this were the case, it would sanctify even him that eats unworthily of the Bread of the Lord, and no one would become infirm or weak on account of this food, nor would they fall asleep… In regard to this Bread of the Lord, therefore, there is advantage to him who avails himself of it, when, with undefiled mind and pure conscience, he partakes of the Bread… It is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to the one who eats it not unworthily of the Lord.
These things, indeed are said of the typical and symbolic body; but much more might be said about the Word Himself, who became flesh and true food, of which he that eats shall surely live forever, no wicked person being able to eat it. For if it were possible for one who continues in wickedness to eat of him who became flesh, the Word and the Living Bread, it would not have been written that everyone who eats of this Bread shall live forever.
That which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not of its very nature sanctify him who avails himself of it. If this were the case, it would sanctify even him that eats unworthily of the Bread of the Lord, and no one would become infirm or weak on account of this food, nor would they fall asleep… In regard to this Bread of the Lord, therefore, there is advantage to him who avails himself of it, when, with undefiled mind and pure conscience, he partakes of the Bread… It is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to the one who eats it not unworthily of the Lord.
These things, indeed are said of the typical and symbolic body; but much more might be said about the Word Himself, who became flesh and true food, of which he that eats shall surely live forever, no wicked person being able to eat it. For if it were possible for one who continues in wickedness to eat of him who became flesh, the Word and the Living Bread, it would not have been written that everyone who eats of this Bread shall live forever.
G
gmk
Guest
Thanks for the help.
John, yours specifically is right along the lines of something that was refered to me by a friend. His point is that the Bread of Life discourse in John is establishing that the Eucharist is a symbolic meal and that the Word (Scripture) is what we are to be nourished by.
He is making the point that not only did Origen not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but also that this is a strong endorsement by Origen of Sola Scriptura.
The text that you have refered, at least this part of it, seems to be in line with that theory???
John, yours specifically is right along the lines of something that was refered to me by a friend. His point is that the Bread of Life discourse in John is establishing that the Eucharist is a symbolic meal and that the Word (Scripture) is what we are to be nourished by.
He is making the point that not only did Origen not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but also that this is a strong endorsement by Origen of Sola Scriptura.
The text that you have refered, at least this part of it, seems to be in line with that theory???
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Also from William A. Jurgens’ book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, pages 205-206:
Origen, *Homilies on Exodus *[post A.D. 244], Homily 13:3:
“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?”
Origen, *Homilies on Exodus *[post A.D. 244], Homily 13:3:
“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?”
G
gsaccone
Guest
Those are not the only writings by Origen on the Eucharist, they are the only ones that can be twisted enough so as to say Origen taught it was symbolic. But even those quotes aren’t convincing. Consider the following:
"Now we are said to drink the blood of Christ NOT ONLY in the way of Sacraments, but ALSO when we receive HIS WORDS"
Here Origen is pointing out that he DOES believe that Christ comes to us in the Sacraments since we receive Him NOT ONLY in the Sacraments but also when we receive His word. What he is trying to draw out is that while we do receive Christ in the Eucharist, we should also receive Him in His words.
Consider also this quote:
“Let the bread and the cup be understood by the more SIMPLE according to the more COMMON acceptation of the Eucharist, BUT by those who have learnt to hear more DEEPLY according to the more divine promise, even that of the nourishing WORD of the truth.” (Origen, In Joann 32:24[16])
Here Origen is again acknowledging that Christ is present in the Eucharist and this is the common way He comes to all. But for the more learned (i.e. those who could read and study His word) there were other nourishing elements in the Word.
So you see Origen didn’t say that Christ wasn’t present in the Eucharist - he didn’t take an either/or stance. He was both/and. We receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist but we also receive Him in the Word.
And even if there were a couple Fathers of the Church that didn’t accept the True Presence, that is not sufficient to outweigh the OVERWHELMING consent by the rest of the Fathers and Christianity as a whole. The Magesterium doesn’t falter because of a few dissenting Bishops. No matter here, however, because Origen isn’t saying what your friend would like to think he is.
God Bless
R
rwoehmke
Guest
In John 6 Jesus says (paraphrased) Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man you will not have life within you. Many left in disgust with this notion. If the words were meant only symbolically why would they leave in disgust?
- Status