Skip to comments.
The Real Presence [Church Fathers on the Holy Eucharist, cont'd ]
The Church Fathers ^
| 100AD-431AD
Posted on 01/27/2011 10:16:20 AM PST by marshmallow
Irenaeus
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. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty [Mal. 1:1011]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
Ignatius of Antioch
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 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 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).
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 lifeflesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him? (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
Eat my flesh, [Jesus] says, and drink my blood. The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christs] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper] (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. 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 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord (The Lapsed 1516 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it] (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Masters declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ? It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, This is the symbol of my body, but, This is my body. In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, This is the symbol of my blood, but, This is my blood; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, This is my body [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lords 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 [A.D. 411]).
What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
TOPICS: Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 last
To: Jvette
I trust the church, because I trust Jesus.It is a stretch to deny that there is no church regardless of how one wishes to interpret the word ekklesia.
There is a body of believers, one gathers with them to worship. It is clear that that is what the first Christians did.
There was obviously a need for teaching, correction and instruction on how one was to live within the body of Christ.
What I meant by saying there is no earthly church building, the people gethered in homes. It was never meant to evolve into what the Catholic Church has become. The Church claims Jesus spent extra time with the apostles to justify their claims. They use Jesus changing Peter's name and telling Peter to feed His sheep three times some how established an earthly church with Peter as its head.
We can look in the Old Testament to see how God set up His earthly priesthood and who would be their successors. He goes into great detail in every thing from how they dress. How the garments were to be made. What was to be sacrificed and how. If Jesus had done that in His Church, we wouldn't be arguing as to whether He is present in the communion wafer.
Here is a sample of who the priests are and what they wear. Exodus 28:1-
If God had wanted a New Testament earthly Church Like the Catholic's have today, we would all know who the Pope is and why he wears what he wears.
I said I read with a Catholic heart. You call that bias. I could then counter and say that when you read Scripture you do so with an anti-Catholic bias. You might claim that you have some special knowledge that I dont have when you read that allows you to see the truth and hinders my ability to do likewise. I think thats called Gnosticism.
I am sorry for the misunderstanding of what I meant by bias. I am old enough that I learned the whole world functioned in inches, feet, yards and miles. I am more comfortable with fractions then meters and milimeters. That is how I meant a bias. Because you were first schooled in Catholicism, you are more comfortable with their teachings. It is our nature.
What I can see from our conversation though is that we both love the Lord and though we have deep disagreements about how to live in that love, we can be honorable in those disagreements.
Thank you and may God bless us both with His truth, BVB
To: Jvette
Saying that the words He spoke were Spirit is not an adequate answer to me.That's fine, and that's your choice. But you can't say no one answered your question.
He said they are Spirit and Life. Not symbols and life.
He also did not say they are flesh and life.
Of all the hard things Jesus said, that particular one is the only one that made some leave.
Not true. When Jesus told the man to sell all he had, give to the poor, and follow him, the man left.
Why tell them they had to EAT HIS FLESH and DRINK HIS BLOOD?
It's a spiritual act of receiving the sacrifice Jesus gave on the cross. I'm sure you won't agree with that answer, but you can't say your question wasn't answered. :)
102
posted on
02/04/2011 8:47:29 AM PST
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: Bobsvainbabblings
See, we agree again.
The only thing I can say regarding the disciples is that there was special authority and deference paid to those who actually walked with Jesus.
That is why they were suspicious of Paul, that and of course, his persecution of them.
The point is that from the beginning those who spent actual time with Jesus were considered in a different light.
As for the rest, I truly believe that the developments of the church and such were all natural and not surprising considering human nature.
103
posted on
02/04/2011 5:27:10 PM PST
by
Jvette
To: Jvette
The only thing I can say regarding the disciples is that there was special authority and deference paid to those who actually walked with Jesus.That is why they were suspicious of Paul, that and of course, his persecution of them.
The point is that from the beginning those who spent actual time with Jesus were considered in a different light.
As for the rest, I truly believe that the developments of the church and such were all natural and not surprising considering human nature.
Let's see what Our Lord has to say about who He thought was special in the early Church.
Acts 8:10-17
And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prays, 12 And has seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on your name. 15 But the Lord said to him, Go your way: for he is a chosen vessel to me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared to you in the way as you came, has sent me, that you might receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Ananias is a disciple from Damascus who the Lord told in a vision what to do. The apostles had noting to do with this. Our Lord, and his Lord, spoke and he obeyed. That same disciple laid hands on Paul and filled him with the Holy Ghost.
The Church claims that Peter was somehow in charge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Lord and God's Spirit were in charge. Paul tells others multiple times he will do something if the Spirit bids him to do it. Not once dose he say, "If Peter wills it."
May God bless us with His truth, BVB
To: Bobsvainbabblings
I think the problem here is that though Catholics do believe that St. Peter had primacy, we know that the Holy Spirit works through whomever He chooses.
Saul was on his way to Damascus and the Apostles were in Jerusalem, but that is beside the point that I am making here.
By accepting Peter’s place at the head, we do not mean that it is only through him that the Spirit works.
The Church is not just the pope and the Holy Spirit moves within so many that it is a mistake to think that He moves only through the pope.
This fact is perfectly demonstrated in the lives of saints who with the Holy Spirit added so much to the prayer life and charitable life of the church.
The pope is merely the visible head, and when he speaks as the Church we are assured of his infallibility. The Holy Spirit protects us from error in matters of faith and morals.
It is not your fault that your impression of the Church and her members is that of puppet master and oppressed followers. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that is the picture that is painted.
105
posted on
02/06/2011 7:03:18 PM PST
by
Jvette
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson