PART 8 CHRIST IN YOU

7

What Did the Church Fathers Believe Concerning the Elements of Communion?

What we’ll take a look at next is another approach that many believe supports the view that the elements of communion are to be taken literally. This involves seeing what the writings of the Church Fathers have to say about the features of communion. This topic will be consolidated under the word transubstantiation, the doctrine formulated at the Council of Trent (a council of the Roman Catholic Church that defined church teachings between 1545-1563 AD) concerning the elements of communion. While we’ve already defined this view, let’s state it again. This theological perspective noted that the essence of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. [It’s] no longer bread and wine, but Christ really [is] present under the appearance of bread and wine.²²

So, just who are these Church Fathers? They’re those whose writings have preserved, to a certain extent, the history, doctrines, and traditions of the early church. These writers are grouped and named according to the time they lived. Some lived closest to the time of the original apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers and presumably would hold doctrinal beliefs that are similar to theirs.

Many believe that the last of the original apostles to die was the Apostle John in about 95 AD. So, any writers who lived before 120 AD would be included in the group known as the Apostolic Fathers. There are two other factions of Church Fathers, i.e., those who lived from 120 AD to 325 AD, who are called the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and those who lived after 325 AD, who are called the Post-Nicene Fathers.

Let’s look at some of these writers from each period. Sometimes, when reading their writings, it won’t be easy to understand what they were saying about communion. However, what might help us in this understanding is the opinions of biblical scholars who’ve studiously tried to determine what each of them believed about Transubstantiation.

 

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS (BEFORE 120 AD)

Research reveals that there were five Apostolic Fathers: Burnab (Barnabas), Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas. Of these, I could only find one of them, Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote about the elements of communion. His writings, however, on this topic are controversial. Here’s what he had to say.

 

Ignatius of Antioch

Those who adhere to the idea that Ignatius believed in Transubstantiation use his [quote, “that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.]”²³ On the other hand, those who think Ignatius [didn’t believe in Transubstantiation] would claim that his words, “that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”²⁴ were taken out of context, meaning these words have to be looked [at] regarding why they were said in this manner.

The words of Ignatius were taken from an argument he had with Gnostic Docetists, who denied the true physical existence of our Lord; as such, they also denied his death and resurrection. In his response to their [claim,] he wrote, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from [prayer because they don’t confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, i.e.,] Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”²⁵ The Docetists didn’t participate in the partaking of the [Eucharist] because they denied the reality of Christ’s life.         

 

Was Ignatius saying that the Eucharist (in this context, meaning the bread) is Christ’s literal flesh or merely symbolic of it?

There are two schools of thought on this. If we were to just look at the words, the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, it would seem appropriate to say that Ignatius believed that at communion the Eucharist turned into Christ’s literal flesh. However, when you look at these words and the ones that followed them, i.e., the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again, he could be saying that the Eucharist is the celebration or representation of the passion and resurrection of our Lord. In this regard, I’d say that conclusively no opinion can be reached as to what he believed with respect to whether the elements of communion are to be interpreted literally or symbolically.

What follows is a listing of some of the Church Fathers whose writings reference the elements of communion. [They’re] listed in alphabetical order under one of two headings, either of those who believe in Transubstantiation or those who don’t. Also, next to each name are either the words Ante-Nicene (120 AD to 325 AD) or Post-Nicene (after 325 AD), which indicates during which time period they lived.

Did most of them believe in Transubstantiation? What do you think? Let’s find out.

 

A.   THE CHURCH FATHERS WHO BELIEVED IN TRANSUBSTANTIATION

 

Ambrose of Milan(Post-Nicene �" after 325 AD)

“Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed.’] Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s [Death.”] Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380), in NPNF2, X:278.²⁶

                                               

Athanasius (Post-Nicene)

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of [wine] and placing them on the table. So, long as the prayers and invocations [haven’t yet been made, it’s] mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wondrous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ... When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26,1325 (ante A.D. 373), in ECD, 442.²⁷

                                                                   

Cyprian (Ante-Nicene �" 120 AD to 325 AD)

“We ask that this bread should be given to us daily - so that we who are in Christ and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not by the interposition of some heinous sin be prevented ...from partaking of the heavenly bread.... He Himself predicts and warns, ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of My bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world’ [John 6:58]. When therefore He says that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live forever, as those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so on the other [hand,] we must fear and pray lest any one ...being withheld from communion and separated from Christ’s body-should remain at a distance from salvation.”²⁸ (Treatises IV: 18, 251 AD)

          

Cyril of Jerusalem (Post-Nicene)

“Under the type of bread His body given unto thee, and under the type of wine His blood given unto thee.”    

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII: 4 ([c. A.D. 350), in NPNF2, VII: 152.] 

“Having [learned] these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII: 8 ([c. A.D. 350]), in NPNF2, VII: 152.²⁹

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Gregory of Nyssa (Post-Nicene)

Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word…the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and [prayer;]’ …since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption….” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 ([post-A.D. 383]), in NPNF2, V: 505-506.³⁰                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Hippolytus (Ante-Nicene)

…refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood³¹… 

                                                                                                                                                          

Iranaeus of Lyons (Ante-Nicene)

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 ([c. A.D. 200]), in NE, [119].³²

                                         

John of Damascus (Post-Nicene)

“The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the [body,] which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, [it’s] enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit.

Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, [it’s] for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, [it’s] for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who [don’t believe and to the murderers of the Lord it’s] for everlasting chastisement and punishment.

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!)[,] but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, ‘This is My body,’ not, this is a figure of My body: and ‘My blood,’ not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous [occasion,] He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat [indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me] shall live.” John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13(A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX: 83.³³

                   

Theodorus of Mopsuestia (Post-Nicene)

He [didn’t] say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (ante A.D. 428), in [JUR, II:8].³⁴

“When [Christ gave the bread, he didn’t say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’]³⁵

                                          

Theodoret of Cyrus (Post-Nicene)

[Apparently, in this section of writing on the elements of communion, there’s a recorded conversation] between two people.

“Eran.--You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine [mysteries, for from it,] I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my questions. Orth.--I will answer. Eran.--What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation? Orth.--It [was] wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present. Eran.--Let your answer be put enigmatically. Orth.--Food of grain of such a sort. Eran.--And how name we the other symbol? Orth.--This name [too,] is common, signifying species of drink. Eran.--And after the [consecration,] how do you name these? Orth.�"Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. Eran.--And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood? Orth.--I do.” Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes, 2 (A.D. 451), in NPNF1, III:200.³⁶                                                    

 

B.   THE CHURCH FATHERS WHO DIDN’T BELIEVE IN TRANSUBSTANTIATION

 

Augustine (Post-Nicene)

Augustine’s advice [was] “to guard us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal,” referring to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist to illustrate this important principle.

“…our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many (Old Testament rites), and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as [anyone looks upon these observances,] he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and [bondage.”] (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3)

That bread, which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, [you’re] yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, we, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s Table, “one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.” (Augustine, Sermons, 227)                                                                                                                      

Augustine believed that the elements [of the body and blood of Jesus were] figurative. Just as he asserts that the bread is the body of Christ, he is equally emphatic that Christians are one loaf, one body. Clearly, he meant that the one Eucharistic loaf represents the unity among believers. Similarly, “by means of these things” (the bread and the cup), the Lord presents his people with his body and blood.

The Eucharistic elements are the figure or sign of Christ, as Augustine asserts explicitly elsewhere in his writings:

The Lord [didn’t hesitate to say: “This is My Body”] when He wanted to give a sign of His body.”] (Augustine, Against Adimant)                                      

He [Christ committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood.”] (Augustine, on [Psalms] 3)

[The sacraments bear the names of the realities that they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner, the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.”] (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface)      

The elements of communion are the figure of the body and blood of Jesus, and since it represents the body and blood of Christ [it’s] acceptable to call them His body and His blood. The bread resembles the body; [therefore, it’s called the body even though it’s] not the reality it represents. That is perfectly normal in figurative language.

Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs that he defined [as]“a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, we remember the body of Christ. The mistake of the modern Catholic Church is to confuse the sign with the reality it represents. Augustine rightly warns [that] “to take signs for the things that are signified by [them] is a mark of weakness and bondage” (On Christian Doctrine 3, 9). Augustine is here referring to the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. Thus, to confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine, a mark of weakness and bondage.³⁷                                     

 

Chrysostom (Post-Nicene)

“If it be a fault (saith he) to translate the holy vessels (in the which is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of the body) to private uses; how much more [offense] is it to abuse and defile the vessels of our body?” (11 homily on Matthew pg. 32-33) Notice that the words “true body” are not the same as the words “mystery of the body.”              

“Before the bread be hallowed, we call it bread: but, the grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the priest, it is delivered now from the name of bread and esteemed worthy to be called Christ’s body, although the nature of the bread tarry in it [still.”] (Chrysostom’s ad Caearium monachum, 34) So, the nature of bread remains in it, but because of its sanctification, the bread can receive the name of Christ’s body.³⁸           

    

Clement of Alexandria (Ante-Nicene)         

“But [you’re] not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes�"the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus�"that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (ibid)

The words of the Lord from the bread of life [discourse,] “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, [it’s] not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.

If the doctrine hinges on Jesus’ words, “Eat My flesh and drink My [blood,]” being literal, then Clement is indeed denying the real presence doctrine.³⁹

 

Cyprian (Pre-Nicene)

“When the Lord calls bread which is combined by the union of many grains, His body-He indicates our people whom He bore as being united. And when He calls the wine which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and collected together, His blood-He also signifies our flock linked together by the mingling of a united multitude.” Clearly, Cyprian is devoid of transubstantiationism. (Forty-second. Also in his Epistle 75(69) to Magnus).⁴⁰

Eusebius (Post-Nicene)                                                                                                                                                                           

Eusebius qualifies communion as, “Christ Himself gave the symbols of the Divine ceremony to His own disciples that the image of His own body should be made. He appointed to use bread as a symbol of His own body.”⁴¹                                                                                                                                                                          

Justin Martyr, Justin of Caesarea (Pre-Nicene)

“And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds�"the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh�"we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.” (ibid, 26)

To put it in context, Justin first referred to the eating of human flesh a shameful deed; then he explained that the Eucharist celebration does not involve consuming human flesh in any way. The bread and wine mixed with water are symbolically the body and blood of Christ. The accusation that Christians ate human flesh was used to persecute Christians, while others who may have actually done that were not persecuted. The purpose of Justin’s explanation of the Eucharist was to counter the accusation that Christians ate human flesh.⁴²

 

Origen (Pre-Nicene)                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Even Origen [acknowledges] “that they (bread and wine) are figures which are written in the sacred volumes; [therefore,] as spiritual not as carnal, examine and understand what is said. For if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you.”⁴³                                                      

 

Tertullian of Carthage (Pre-Nicene)

Tertullian uses the Eucharist to combat Docetism, which denies the true physical existence of our [Lord,] thus also denying his death and resurrection.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own [body] by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there [couldn’t have been unless there was] first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4).                                                         

Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and its representation of the “veritable body” of our Lord.

“Christ, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, made it His body by saying, “This is my [body,’] that is, the figure of my body.”⁴⁴                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Theophilus of Antioch (Pre-Nicene)

Theophilusrebukes the “godless lips [which] falsely accuse us who are worshippers of God and are called Christians...that we eat human flesh.” However, if it had then been their teaching that in the [Eucharist,] the bread and wine cease to exist by getting transubstantiated into human flesh and blood - Theophilus could not here have resented the false accusation of the Pagans that Christians are cannibals, as being “most barbarous and impious” as he here indeed does. (Twenty-eighth. Also, the A.D. 180 Theophilus in his Letters to Autolycus 111:4)⁴⁵

Well, that was interesting! What do you think? Did there seem to be a consensus by the church fathers one way or the other as to whether the bread and wine at communion were to be interpreted literally or figuratively?

As we can see, there were ten church fathers who believed in Transubstantiation and 9 who didn’t with one of them being inconclusive. I’m sure there are some biblical scholars who might dispute these findings. However, what we can safely say is there wasn’t an overwhelming majority of the church fathers who believed in the literal view. Am I surprised at these findings? I would say, yes. Based on what my fellow colleague said, it sounded as if this was a slam dunk. While this research doesn’t necessarily support or not support the doctrine of Transubstantiation, what it does reveal to us is that this topic was as controversial two thousand years ago as it is today.

What we’ll do in the next chapter, is take a closer look at the words no life in you from John 6:53 and determine what they might mean.