Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
This two-part post is intended to provide an initial response to such assertions.
The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Table. Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
In discussing the Lord’s Table from the perspective of church history, at least two important questions arise. First, did the early church believe that the elements (the bread and the cup) were actually and literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ? In other words, did they articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation as modern Roman Catholics do? Second, did early Christians view the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or put another way, did they view it in the terms articulated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent?
In today’s post, we will address the first of those two questions.
Did the Early Church Fathers Hold to Transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic teaching that in the eucharist, the bread and the cup are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Here are several quotes from the church fathers, often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.
Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).
Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).
Irenaeus again: “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).
Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).
Origen (182–254): “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’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).
Augustine (354–430): “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227).
How should we think about such statements?
Obviously, there is no disputing the fact that the patristic authors made statements like, “The bread is the body of Christ” and “The cup is the blood of Christ.” But there is a question of exactly what they meant when they used that language. After all, the Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words.
But what did they mean when they used the language of Christ to describe the Lord’s Table? Did they intend the elements to be viewed as Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Or did they see the elements as symbols and figures of those physical realities?
In answering such questions, at least two things ought to be kept in mind:
* * * * *
1. We ought to interpret the church fathers’ statements within their historical context.
Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this 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).
In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian 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 represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
* * * * *
2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s Table.
We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.
At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:
The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).
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, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).
Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).
And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).
A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” 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.
At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.
Next week, in part 2, we will consider whether or not the church fathers regarded the Lord’s Table as a propiatory sacrifice (as the Council of Trent defines it) or as simply a memorial offering of thanksgiving.
Where is THAT in the DSM-IV?
Families don't allow family members to continue down a path that will lead to annihilation. Check out what Christ said to the seven churches in Revelation. Those that were in error were rather harshly warned.
No, we're not all sinners. Born again believers are saints. We're saints who sometimes sin.
If we sin, we confess it and move on.
Most catholics seem to be hung up on the idea, that they think we can get saved, then we can go live like Hades, because, after all, we are saved, so we can do whatever we want. They have been told a thousand times this is false, and it hasn't sunk in yet. Someone who does that is not saved in the first place. That is the attitude I had when I was a catholic. I enjoyed sinning, because I thought I would go confess to a priest, say my our fathers and Hail Marys and I would be ok. Not. Now that I am saved, I can not possibly enjoy sinning like I did when I was a catholic. I don't feel good about it at all, but, as you say, confess it and move on. Not at all a difficult concept to grasp is it?
Well...
...that's not been working too effectively; has it!
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
The variable measurement of time between your last known sin and asking for forgiveness over it.
Last Rites can handle that small problem IF a priest is available.
An altruistic love between brethren would encourage fraternal correction. The parents though, have the right to speak to their children in ways intrinsic to their authority; when the children argue amongst themselves, does the parent not intervene and have the final say? Would he not encourage peace among his children?
God made each of us unique, like snowflakes. There are differences between us. Those differences can be discussed as people who love God: a common thread between us that supersedes our differences, and should permeate all our discussions.
I would like to see an ecumenical prayer thread, where we each praised God, thanked Him, declared our love for Him together. I tried recently. When I speak of unity among Christians, I don't believe that means that we must belong to one church, or any church, if one chooses. God works wonders every moment in His Creation. God worked in my life by saving my mother's life when she was terminally ill and sent home to die with her family. I was a baby then, but my Mom and my Dad and I never forgot that God had given us a miracle! I believe that each of us here has a story to tell of how God helped them through a difficult time. We all have so much to be grateful for, even in these difficult times, as it is God Who sustains us.
May He bless you always, and give you His peace!
Pinging a bunch of former Catholics for them to find out that for their entire lives, they had been lied to about how to take communion and that they never really received the sacrament. Now, that (not actually properly receiving the eucharist) according to Catholic doctrine would then probably put untold millions of Catholics for generations in hell.
I think you may be confusing dissolving and then swallowing (it has to go somewhere) versus chewing somewhat. To receive the sppsd body and body and engage in endocannibalism one must ingest it, but i find no infallible teaching that excludes dissolving and then swallowing, versus gently munching and then swallowing.
"Fr." Z's Blog, ...in a manual by Heribert Jone, OFM, we find the opinion that if one only allows the Host the dissolve in the mouth, one does not receive the Sacrament. -http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-host-became-stuck-in-my-throat-did-i-commit-sacrilege/
250 Q: In receiving Holy Communion you must never let it entirely dissolve in your mouth, for if you do not swallow it you will not receive Holy Communion at all. - Baltimore Catechism No. 4, Thomas L. Kinkead; http://biblehub.com/library/kinkead/baltimore_catechism_no_4/lesson_22_on_the_holy.htm
This is a popular topic at Catholic Answers (where even many Caths get banned), which includes answers as,
In the Eastern tradition, where leavened bread is used, one must chew the Body.
Jesus is present in the host only for as long as the appearance of bread remains. If it is completely dissolved, the appearance of bread is gone, and so is Jesus. You would have held Him in your mouth for awhile, but not actually received Holy Communion as is intended.
The reason you don't want to chew is that your teeth have crevices and can hold a lot of the host...the smallest particle is the entire Christ - nondiscriminate chewing retains pieces of the host in your teeth which will prolong the real presence in your mouth without you even knowing it - unlike in your stomach where common oppinion is about 15 minutes before the stomach fluids break down the host and the Real Presence is gone.
How many people chew the host like a cracker then will go to breakfast immediately afterwards - it's just plain disrespect...the old catechisms even recommended not spitting for at least an hour after receiving... It's downright disrespectful to our Sovereign God to invite Him into your heart for Communion then go immediately to the KofC breakfast downstairs while the Real Presence of Christ still exists in your heart. - - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=328042
Caths would be very uncomfortable according to the description of the Lord's supper in 1Cor. 11:19-34 , in which the members of the body of Christ were to "show," declare, His death for that body (Acts 20:28) and thus their union with Him and each other by unselfish considerate sharing of a communal meal. Which some were not doing by eating independently of others, shaming them that have not, and thus Paul said they did not come together to eat the Lord's supper, though they came to eat.
I’m wondering what happened to the poster who asked the question.
For all the answers that question has received, I have not seen one response to them yet.
I’ll take Him living in my heart by faith 24/7 thankyouverymuch.
Wow again.
I am certain I read it in Jone-Adelman, about forty years ago. I was not aware that ANYBODY in recent times was discussing this.
I remember with crystal clarity being instructed to allow the Host to dissolve in our mouths. That’s why, when I read about this in Jone-Adelman about fifteen years later, it stuck in my minds.
There is NO WAY that anybody is in hell as a consequence of being badly instructed in how to receive Communion.
“Eucharist” means “thanksgiving” or “giving thanks.”
Of course, there are no references to giving thanks in the Scriptures.
People go to hell because of their deliberate sins.
No one ever went to hell because of invincible or inculpable ignorance.
The post served its purpose...thread disruption.
IMO the poster asked the question so they could give their answer and then leave.
I'd have more respect for your diatribe if I read you saying the same thing on the Roman Catholic Religion Forum threads that bash Protestants and any Christian who isn't a Roman Catholic.
People go to hell for rejecting God’s gift of salvation offered in and through a relationship with Jesus.
Yes, sin is the reason we are condemned to hell but if all someone did was sin ONE sin and live an otherwise perfect life, they’d still be going to hell.
It took only one sin for Adam and Eve to break their relationship with God and have Him promise a redeemer.
So even if it were possible to die not in an actual state of sinning, the record of our life testifies against us, unless that record is wiped clean and judicial pardon is granted.
It is one of those non-binding competing tradition.
There is NO WAY that anybody is in hell as a consequence of being badly instructed in how to receive Communion.
Well, i think the logic was that since RCs tell us we must literally physically consume the flesh and blood of Christ in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life, invoking Jn. 6:53,54 - though nowhere in Scripture does literally physically consuming anything material or corporeal gain anything spiritual - then if one does not receive the "sacramement" then one is lost.
In reality, if one believes receiving the so-called "Real Presence" gains them eternal life, and their own merit, even if by grace, then they are headed to Hell-fire.
And therein lies a distinct difference between those who put their faith in Christ alone and those who put their faith in the Catholic Church. Catholics believe that "parent" is the Catholic Church. They tell us again and again that the Catholic Church is their mother. Those who trust in Christ alone know that the "parent" is God alone and look to His word and the indwelt Holy Spirit for that guidance and correction. It is God who has that final say.
>>Would he not encourage peace among his children?<<
And He does. But those who refuse to adhere to His word alone but rely on the word of man are either not His children or have yet to submit themselves to His guidance and correction.
>>Those differences can be discussed as people who love God: a common thread between us that supersedes our differences, and should permeate all our discussions.<<
I agree wholeheartedly. That can only be accomplished by those who have submitted themselves to God alone without the insertion of some person or entity between themselves and God. The Catholic Church would like people to think they are the "pillar and foundation of truth" but let's look at the Greek order of the words in that passage.
1 Timothy 3:15 If moreover I should delay that you might know how it behoves one in the household of God to conduct oneself which is the ekklesia of God the living pillar and base of the truth.
The word "ekklesia" in the Greek refers to "those called out" or "an assembly of those called out". That word is used for assemblies of community leaders who have been "called out" of the community to assemble for some purpose. It is also used for those who have been "called out" by God as His chosen people. Those "called out" of the world if you will.
With that in mind look at that the verse above again. It's God who is the pillar and base of truth. Now you might read in many Bibles the term "foundation of truth" but that is NOT what the Greek says. the Greek word for "foundation" is θεμέλιος or transliterated "themelios". That is NOT the word used in the verse above concerning the ekklesia (church). It is used in Ephesians 2:20 where it says the apostles are the foundation.
Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
So you can see that there is a terrible misunderstanding of who that "pillar and base of truth" is. It's not some "church". It's God Himself with Christ as the cornerstone. The foundation of the ekklesia is the apostles who were the first chosen by Christ to begin the building of His called out ones. There is no "church" that has been given the task of being the "pillar and foundation" of truth. It is no "church" that is the "mother of us all". Our "parent" is our Father in heaven who gave us His word in scripture. It is He who has "the final say".
>>When I speak of unity among Christians, I don't believe that means that we must belong to one church, or any church, if one chooses.<<
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there is a tendency for those who "belong to one church" to put that church in the place of God who they go to for truth. It is that "church" that they go to for truth rather than God. "Christians" are those who follow Christ alone with no arbiter between themselves and God. It is the Holy Spirit (God) who is our counsellor and teacher. We can have those who point out the truths of scripture to us but as Paul said, we had better "search the scriptures daily to see if what they say is true".
I made myself a bit unclear. I'm not as articulate as some; please excuse me! When I metaphorically referred to a family, I meant God as the father/parent having the authority over his children, that is, all of us; and that the children do not have authority over one another as peers. I did not refer to the Catholic Church, as I wished to be inclusive of all of us.
What we believe as Catholics is that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit do have the final word. As you believe that one can interpret individually with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we believe our Church heirarchy has the same capacity to receive that Guidance.
As the father is to a family, so is God to us. As a mother is often the one at home, taking care of the children, instructing them, but with the father still head of the household. Thus the Church is often referred to as Mother. Mater et Magistra, (Mother and Teacher) is the name of an encyclical of Pope St. John XXIII as well.
I'll reply to the next part as soon as I can. My eyes need a rest right now. Thank you for your thorough and courteous answer!
God bless you!
Oh but we do have the authority to reprove, rebuke, and exhort.
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
>>What we believe as Catholics is that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit do have the final word.<<
I would question that statement. Catholics rely on the "magisterium" to not only interpret but also to require beliefs not found in scripture which we all agree are the words of God. What assurance do you have that what the Catholic Church teaches is the word of God? Catholics are reduced to faith in their "magisterium" because they cannot prove that what the Catholic Church teaches as tradition is exactly what the apostles meant when they claimed they were teaching tradition.
>>As you believe that one can interpret individually with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we believe our Church heirarchy has the same capacity to receive that Guidance.<<
But Catholics restrict that interpretation to the "church hierarchy". Even the apostles didn't make that distinction.
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
They didn't restrict us to be in subjection so some earthly "magisterium" to tell us what scripture means.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
We rely on the Holy Spirit given to us all to open our eyes and enlighten us as to truth. No where in scripture do the apostles teach to be in subjection to some "hierarchy" or "magisterium". In fact, just the opposite is true. We are warned about false prophets and false teachers.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
>>Thus the Church is often referred to as Mother.<<
And that falsely. The "church" is not our mother.
Galatias 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
The term "mother church" is a false man made believe. Not once in scripture is some "church" referred to as our mother.
>>Mater et Magistra, (Mother and Teacher) is the name of an encyclical of Pope St. John XXIII as well.<<
See 1 John 2:27 above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.