I don't remember which church Fathers were the sources, but it was in a course in patristics that I encountered this. It isn't "connecting the bread and wine to his human nature", it's the idea that the mundane is always overwhelmed by the divine or that the divine can't be present in the material. Maybe I;m linking it to the wrong heresy, but according to the readings in that course denial of the Real Presence was considered denial of the Incarnation.As I said earlier, they would not have considered it docetism, because the Bread and the Wine are not analogous to the human nature of Christ, and in the Eucharist we partake of both the humanity and the divinity of our Lord.
Docetists believed, just to review, that our Lord was entirely divine, lacking a human nature. Nestorians believe that His divinity and humanity can be separated, whereas the Nicene Christology of the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians is that the humanity and divinity of our Lord are hypostatically united without change, separation, confusion or division. There is a subtle difference between the Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonian positions but since the Oriental Orthodox position is exactly what was expressed by St. Cyril and enforced by the Council of Ephesus at which Nestorius was deposed, and since the Oriental Orthodox anathematized the Monophysite Eutyches, who taught that the humanity of our Lord dissolved into his Divinity “like a drop of water in the ocean”, which is a confusion of the divine and human natures, they cannot be accused of Monophysitism.
Moving on, if we say in Aristotelian terms, the bread and wine are only there in accidents and not substance, it is still a huge step to say that the human body of our Lord is illustory, because the two are completely unrelated.
What you are doing is connecting the bread and wine to his human nature, which is deeply problematic and is absolutely unprecedented in the theology of the Early Church. None of the ancient anaphoras (Eucharistic prayers), liturgical texts, or discussions of the theology of the Eucharist even come close to suggesting such a connection exists. Furthermore, I would argue that such a view is a departure from the norms of Lutheran theology; I know of no Lutheran text that links the bread and wine with the human body of our Lord, but rather, quite the contrary, this is why many Lutherans object to Lutheran Eucharistic theology being called consubstantiation, because they don’t wish to draw a parallel between the fact that our Lord is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, and the relationship of the bread and wine in the Eucharist to His body and blood.
Now perhaps you have read something written by an Early Church Father which I have not. For that matter, I assume you are unfamiliar with the unusual Eucharistic theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia?
Mar Theodore the Interpreter, as the Assyrians called him, advocated a view which was influential in the East, and which the Roman Catholics completely rejected (although the anathema Emperor Justinian pronounced against Theodore of Mopsuestia, later ratified at the Second Council of Constantinople, caused a schism in the Western Church known as the Three Chapters Controversy which lasted for several centuries as he was extremely popular in France, Spain and other parts of the Latin church) and was for a time the prevailing Eucharistic doctrine in the Church of the East, which is sometimes called the Nestorian church, and is probably why they call the baking of the Eucharistic bread Malka, and count it as one of the Seven Sacraments. It was his opinion that during the Prothesis, the bread and wine become the dead body and blood of our Lord, and at the Epiclesis, become the resurrected body and blood of our Lord.
This view, which is the most extreme and controversial to come from the early church, does not, like any of the other theologies of the Eucharist from the early church, actually connect the bread and wine to the human nature of our Lord specifically, although it comes closest.
I don't recall hitting the Eucharistic ideas of Theodore of Mopsuestia; that part doesn't sound familiar (it sounds decidedly weird). I recall him in connection with fighting Arianism and briefly opposing the title "Theotokos" for the Virgin.
Upvote
0