Early Church Fathers on the Lord's Supper

The Didache really does not give a clear explanation of the beliefs connected to the Eucharist. Hence, what is considered by many to be the earliest Christian document outside of the New Testament leaves us wondering concerning the subject.

The Early fathers described the Eucharist in many ways. As symbolic, as mystery, as supernatural etc. Justin Martyr even uses the word Metaousiosis (transmutation) to describe it after the prayers read over the bread and wine.

Humble_Disciple said:

Ulrich Zwingli is often accused of making up the doctrine that the Lord's Supper is a symbolic memorial of Christ's suffering, rather than literally the body and blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

I believe that it existed long before he was supposedly credited for it.

Humble_Disciple said:

But there doesn't seem to be universal agreement in the early Christian writings for transubstantiation:

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised, as very few of the "early church fathers" could agree on much of anything.
I've read many of their writings ( translated into English, of course ), and I can see it for myself.

That has led me to believe, more than ever, that the only thing that I really can trust, is God's word ( Proverbs 3:5-7 ).

Humble_Disciple said:

I didn't start this thread to have a debate. This is the Baptist sub-forum, and I wanted to provide support from the church fathers for a Baptist doctrine.

Click to expand...

Very interesting, it appears the current RCC doctrine on communion, like so many other beliefs, is a later invention. My understanding is the early church wasn't too particular either about who administered communion.

.

Valletta said:

The Church Fathers, being human, do give different perspectives,

Click to expand...

Being human, the perspectives saying it is His literal body and blood could be wrong, correct?

but although we can gain a greater understanding of the teachings of Jesus as the centuries pass,

Click to expand...

I would think the opposite would be true.

Good Day, HD

I will agree with most of the people here that you will find the ECF somewhat varied on this issue. As they were on so many other issue.

The physical contradiction (Transubstantiation) currently represented by the Roman Church not only has issues fundamentally (contradiction) but also historically.

Consider:

Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
Latin text: Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

Commenting on this passage from Gelasius, the Jesuit scholar Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. wrote: According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. See Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.


Consider: Church Historian Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica



"And then 'He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,' and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1:10)


"And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

"The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which 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,' shew 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.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)

Also the Roman Church has a incorrect understanding of John chapter 6.

Consider:

Clement of Alexandria
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

There are others... I hope you find this useful.

IN Him,

Bill

.

.

Good Day,

Just posting the wider context of Clement of Alexandria as relevant part have been not included from chapter 6.

But if human wisdom, as it remains to understand, is the glorying in knowledge, hear the law of Scripture: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might; but let him that glories glory in the Lord. But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock? And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for you are not yet able, regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.


In Him,

Bill

Valletta said:

My Church is called the "Catholic Church," please use the correct name.

Click to expand...

We're free to refer to your church however we like. I've had Catholics refer to mine as a man-made church.

From Wikipedia:

"While the "Roman Church" has been used to describe the pope's Diocese of Rome since the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and into the Early Middle Ages (6th–10th century), the "Roman Catholic Church" has been applied to the whole church in the English language since the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century.[30] "Roman Catholic" has occasionally appeared also in documents produced both by the Holy See,[note 3] notably applied to certain national episcopal conferences, and local dioceses."

So even your church has referred to itself as 'Roman'.

I think Calvin nailed it perfectly when he teaches what the Fathers did and what he taught was in line with scripture. The Lord's Supper is not a mere memorial but a real, spiritual eating of Christ, we by faith feed upon Christ for spiritual nourishment. It's sacramental.

JM said:

I think Calvin nailed it perfectly when he teaches what the Fathers did and what he taught was in line with scripture. The Lord's Supper is not a mere memorial but a real, spiritual eating of Christ, we by faith feed upon Christ for spiritual nourishment. It's sacramental.

Click to expand...

As CS Lewis said, the veil between this world and the next is never thinner than during communion.

Remember it was in the breaking of the bread that the disciples after the Resurrection recognized Jesus, not in His prior speaking.

Navair2 said:

I believe that it existed long before he was supposedly credited for it.

I'm not surprised, as very few of the "early church fathers" could agree on much of anything.
I've read many of their writings ( translated into English, of course ), and I can see it for myself.

That has led me to believe, more than ever, that the only thing that I really can trust, is God's word ( Proverbs 3:5-7 ).

Click to expand...

I wish I could remember the guy's name or where I read it, but I recall hearing about at least one Catholic monk who held to a memorialist view of the Lord's Supper.

JM said:

I think Calvin nailed it perfectly when he teaches what the Fathers did and what he taught was in line with scripture. The Lord's Supper is not a mere memorial but a real, spiritual eating of Christ, we by faith feed upon Christ for spiritual nourishment. It's sacramental.

Click to expand...

Transubstantiation?

If you're persuaded of that, then I'll have to disagree and state that I don't know how you arrive at that;
Unless you're looking at it the way that most of the Jews did ( including most of the Lord's professing disciples ) in John 6...
That He was speaking about His literal body and blood as being food and drink.

In contrast to that,
I see it as not only a memorial ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ), but a "feeding" on Him though His words ( 1 Peter 2:2 )... as well as knowing Him through the Spirit.

So, as much as I agree with John Calvin on some things,
there are others that I think that he was way off-base on...

Like the Roman Catholic ideas of "sacraments", "infant baptism" and many other teachings.

Navair2 said:

Transubstantiation?

If you're persuaded of that, then I'll have to disagree and state that I don't know how you arrive at that;
Unless you're looking at it the way that most of the Jews did ( including most of the Lord's professing disciples ) in John 6...
That He was speaking about His literal body and blood as being food and drink.

In contrast to that,
I see it as not only a memorial ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ), but a "feeding" on Him though His words ( 1 Peter 2:2 )... as well as knowing Him through the Spirit.

So, as much as I agree with John Calvin on some things,
there are others that I think that he was way off-base on...

Like the Roman Catholic ideas of "sacraments", "infant baptism" and many other teachings.

Click to expand...

I wrote "spiritual eating," and "by faith feed upon Christ." That is not even close to transubstantiation which teaches the physical eating of Christ's flesh and the physical drinking of Christ's blood.

JM said:

I wrote "spiritual eating," and "by faith feed upon Christ." That is not even close to transubstantiation which teaches the physical eating of Christ's flesh and the physical drinking of Christ's blood.

Click to expand...

Sorry, missed that part.

Still, I don't look at them as anything but a memorial of His body and blood ( that were given for us ) that believers are to substitute bread and wine for, to commemorate those things whenever they assemble together.

In other words, I do not believe in "sacraments", or "sacred elements".

I actually don't have a strong stance on the real presence. I'm a memorialist since that's the common Baptist stance, but I'm open to Christ being literally present in the Lord's Supper as long as it isn't transubstantiation.

At least, it's not a hill I will die on.