Did the early church fathers believe in the real precsence of Jesus in the Eucharist

[yogosans14]

I was wondering since I'm interested in converting to Catholicism...

 

[Defensor Christi]

I was wondering since I'm interested in converting to Catholicism...

Although you will get a better and more charitable answer to your question in the One Bread One Body forum...I will answer you here..

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).



"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).



"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

Scripture Catholic - THE EUCHARIST

and here...

The Real Presence | Catholic Answers

 

[ViaCrucis]

St. Ignatius of Antioch definitely believed in it. It's hard to get much earlier than him without appealing directly to Scripture--which of course we should, and which itself confesses the Real Presence such as in our Lord's own words, as well as what St. Paul the Apostle himself states in 1 Corinthians 10.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rick Otto]

I was wondering since I'm interested in converting to Catholicism...

I haven't studied them in detail because even though I respect & in some ways admire them, I don't hold them as authority over my understanding of the eucharist as strictly a metaphor. All attempts to literlize it in some way seem to deny the metaphor & rely on "mystery", which is simply an admission of ignorance, not meant in any pejoritive sense of the word.

If the testimony of martyrs has any weight on this issue for you, you might check out Blandina of Lyons.
Her accusers weren't very aware of metaphor & so naturaly equated what they heard with some form of cannibalism.

She was written about by Eusibius.
"Eusebius had access to the Theological Library of Caesarea and made use of many ecclesiastical monuments and documents, acts of the martyrs, letters, extracts from earlier Christian writings, lists of bishops, and similar sources, often quoting the originals at great length so that his work contains materials not elsewhere preserved. For example he wrote that Matthew composed the Gospel according to the Hebrews and his Church Catalogue suggests that it was the only Jewish gospel." -Wiki

 

[Defensor Christi]

I haven't studied them in detail because even though I respect & in some ways admire them, I don't hold them as authority over my understanding of the eucharist as strictly a metaphor. All attempts to literlize it in some way seem to deny the metaphor & rely on "mystery", which is simply an admission of ignorance, not meant in any pejoritive sense of the word.

The Holy Trinity is also considered a mystery of faith...do you consider it to be metaphor? Or an admission of ignorance?

If the testimony of martyrs has any weight on this issue for you, you might check out Blandina of Lyons.
Her accusers weren't very aware of metaphor & so naturaly equated what they heard with some form of cannibalism.

Or perhaps, they were aware of the teachings of the early Church...that we literally ate the body of Christ and drank His blood...

 

[Ignatius21]

That would be the pretty inescapable conclusion.

We cannot say that the early church believed in Theory XYZ of exactly how it became the body and blood. All attempts to read later philosophical explanations back into the early writings lead simply to anachronism.

I believe that Ignatius of Antioch's words can essentially be taken to equate disbelief in the eucharist being the body and blood of Christ, to docetism...i.e. (in his thought) the reason why one would deny that the Eucharist was the body and blood, was that one denied that Jesus really had a body and blood.

 

[Standing Up]

Or perhaps, they were aware of the teachings of the early Church...that we literally ate the body of Christ and drank His blood...

The martyrs of Lyons (Blandina for one) denied the accusations and went to their deaths. Had they admitted, however, that the bread was actually human flesh, they could have lived. See how that worked?

 

[Standing Up]

I was wondering since I'm interested in converting to Catholicism...

You should also be aware that Roman Catholicism's view (transubstantiation) is NOT the same as real presence.

 

[Standing Up]

Tertullian believed the bread as body of Christ was a figure, a symbol.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I was wondering since I'm interested in converting to Catholicism...

Yes they did (and so do we )

 

[Ignatius21]

Tertullian believed the bread as body of Christ was a figure, a symbol.

His view on real presence has been debated in plenty of places. Many writers that I've read on that topic, don't think it's conclusive either way. However, there were other fathers who spoke of the elements as "sybmols," "figures" and "representations" who did elsewhere explictly state belief in real presence. Terms like "symbol" do not automatically mean that what is symbolized, is necessarily absent. Similarly, "representation" literally means "to make present again" and was used that way in early writings. Givent that Tertullian was a contemporary of so many other Fathers, and shared their overall view on so many points, it's probably more reasonable than not to assume that he also held to a belief that the consecrated elements are the real body and blood of Christ. But that's just my best guess at a reasonable hunch. If he didn't hold to such a view, he'd be the outlier.

You are correct that the much later philosophical doctrine of transubstantiation is not one and the same as "real presence. It is a very specific development of the idea, along very specific philosophical and scholastic lines, and by no means the only way to explain the idea of real presence.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

Maybe Tertullian went back and forth on what he believed about it kind of like some of us do.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Defensor Christi;The Holy Trinity is also considered a mystery of faith...do you consider it to be metaphor? Or an admission of ignorance?

I understand your emotional investment in this, but please don't confuse my understanding of the eucharist metaphor with, & please don't be so obtuse as to compare it with, whatever you might imagine my understanding of anything else to be.
About the word mystery, I meant exactly what I said, especialy the part where I said I didn't mean it in a perjorative sense.
Surely you didn't mean to assault my dignity with provocatively impetuous assumptions.

Or perhaps, they were aware of the teachings of the early Church...that we literally ate the body of Christ and drank His blood...

& so you contend... interesting perhaps to many, but hopefully a surprise to very few.

 

[Rick Otto]

His view on real presence has been debated in plenty of places. Many writers that I've read on that topic, don't think it's conclusive either way. However, there were other fathers who spoke of the elements as "sybmols," "figures" and "representations" who did elsewhere explictly state belief in real presence. Terms like "symbol" do not automatically mean that what is symbolized, is necessarily absent. Similarly, "representation" literally means "to make present again" and was used that way in early writings. Givent that Tertullian was a contemporary of so many other Fathers, and shared their overall view on so many points, it's probably more reasonable than not to assume that he also held to a belief that the consecrated elements are the real body and blood of Christ. But that's just my best guess at a reasonable hunch. If he didn't hold to such a view, he'd be the outlier.

You are correct that the much later philosophical doctrine of transubstantiation is not one and the same as "real presence. It is a very specific development of the idea, along very specific philosophical and scholastic lines, and by no means the only way to explain the idea of real presence.

My best guess at a reasonable hunch would go with "outlier".
I know Metaphor is not symbol. The elements being symbolic is not at issue, the elements being literal flesh & blood is at issue.

This confusion is what leads to a pseudo-idolization of the literal elemts themselves, the bread being engineered to eliminate crumbs, lest little pieces of the flesh of Jesus be spilled & trampled or consumed by insects.
They are psychologicaly endowed with a quality that is quite independant of them.
I am quite comfortable being in the minority on this issue.

 

[Rick Otto]

That would be the pretty inescapable conclusion.

We cannot say that the early church believed in Theory XYZ of exactly how it became the body and blood. All attempts to read later philosophical explanations back into the early writings lead simply to anachronism.

I believe that Ignatius of Antioch's words can essentially be taken to equate disbelief in the eucharist being the body and blood of Christ, to docetism...i.e. (in his thought) the reason why one would deny that the Eucharist was the body and blood, was that one denied that Jesus really had a body and blood.

That wouldn't be the reason I deny that the eucharist isn't meant to be taken literaly.
Other than the fact that the expression actualy is by definition, a metaphor, I can literaly see that the elements are still bread & wine after consecration.

 

[sunlover1]

The martyrs of Lyons (Blandina for one) denied the accusations and went to their deaths. Had they admitted, however, that the bread was actually human flesh, they could have lived. See how that worked?

I do.

 

[Knee V]

My best guess at a reasonable hunch would go with "outlier".
I know Metaphor is not symbol. The elements being symbolic is not at issue, the elements being literal flesh & blood is at issue.

This confusion is what leads to a pseudo-idolization of the literal elemts themselves, the bread being engineered to eliminate crumbs, lest little pieces of the flesh of Jesus be spilled & trampled or consumed by insects.
They are psychologicaly endowed with a quality that is quite independant of them.
I am quite comfortable being in the minority on this issue.

Not necessarily. The Latin Church is what it is, and the tendency to do things like making special crumb-less bread is a feature of being Latin. Belief in the Real Presence does not create that tendency, as you will not find that feature outside of Latin influence.

We use regular bread ( we make it ourselves on the local level and what not, but it's not a special "kind" of bread), we consecrate it, and we eat it, and we'll reserve some for the sick and bed-ridden so that they can consume it as well. Our belief in the Real Presence has not led to any tendencies like Eucharistic Adoration, the hyper-defining of Gifts, or anything of the sort. Again, it is not the belief that leads to those things; it is being Latin that leads to those things.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As far as Tertullian is concerned, I'd like to think that of all the ancient fathers he's probably not the most credible. Some of his writings were made when he was still in good standing with the Church, some came later, after he has become a heretic.

Tertullian at some point became involved in the Montanist cult, which isn't surprising seeing some of the legalism expressed in his writings and the legalism of the cult which he joined.

I'm not saying Tertullian is worthless (not by any means!), but I wouldn't hang my hat on Tertullian when we have so much else (and better).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I don't know that the Eucharist is *really* the body and blood of Jesus, but I do think Scripture is clear that that is how we're supposed to treat it.

I really think that in their reaction against Catholism too many Protestants have developed a very cavalier attitude about communion, and they justify it by saying "it's not really the body and blood - it's just symbolic." I've been in churches were they let toddlers take communion - toddlers who have no idea of the significance of it. Yet, we have the nerve to hate on Catholics for baptizing babies. I've been in services where they were just very flippant about the whole thing, talking, cracking jokes, etc. It's not right.

 

[Thekla]

I haven't studied them in detail because even though I respect & in some ways admire them, I don't hold them as authority over my understanding of the eucharist as strictly a metaphor. All attempts to literlize it in some way seem to deny the metaphor & rely on "mystery", which is simply an admission of ignorance, not meant in any pejoritive sense of the word.

If the testimony of martyrs has any weight on this issue for you, you might check out Blandina of Lyons.
Her accusers weren't very aware of metaphor & so naturaly equated what they heard with some form of cannibalism.

She was written about by Eusibius.
"Eusebius had access to the Theological Library of Caesarea and made use of many ecclesiastical monuments and documents, acts of the martyrs, letters, extracts from earlier Christian writings, lists of bishops, and similar sources, often quoting the originals at great length so that his work contains materials not elsewhere preserved. For example he wrote that Matthew composed the Gospel according to the Hebrews and his Church Catalogue suggests that it was the only Jewish gospel." -Wiki

We believe that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood - as Christ resurrected and ascended it is not, however, 'human flesh and blood' but divinized flesh and blood and therefore consuming it is not cannibalism.

This would be consistent with the claim of the martyrs of Lyons (who were also accused of other crimes), who are still commemorated as martyr Saints in 'real presence' Churches. The charges of cannibalism were, iirc, a bit more brutal and direct (as in killing and eating people, infants I think); the Eucharist does not require the slaying of Christ as that was done at the cross.

This does not negate other levels of meaning; metaphor is another layer of meaning though not an exclusive layer of meaning. I don't know the linguistic or mythopoetic history of the Lyon region, or use or knowledge of rhetorical devices; yet, metaphor is a common early human device in numerous era's and cultures (and the backbone of poetry and song).

While here, it is important to note that the meaning of symbol has changed; in earlier eras it denoted an inter-penetration where the part makes present the whole. (Thus, the "part" that is visibly bread makes present the whole: bread and divinized body.)