No Ideology – Just Facts!
Conclusion
The Eucharist in the Ante-Nicene Church
Conclusion
The church of the first three centuries, indeed, did not possess a real presence doctrine; the writings of the church fathers from that era certainly portray that. In particular, Clement of Alexandria and his student Origen explicitly deny that such a doctrine could have existed. But it has been demonstrated in this article that even clearly explicit references from authentic sources denying the notion of transubstantiation is not enough to convince devout Catholics that their beloved doctrine is false.
While researching this article, I asked the Catholic website, “The Real Presence Association” to do the right thing and remove their out-of-context quote from Clement from their borage of other quotes used to support their cause. I did this specifically to get their reaction, knowing they would not actually remove the quote. I was trying to gather a collection of responses to Clement’s statement that the eating of the flesh of Christ was a metaphor from various Catholic websites. Few responded to my requests. But The Real Presence Association did respond, and I was a bit surprised by their defensive posture. Here is the response:
The Real Presence Association’s comments originally appeared here but were removed on their request.
Responses to strong evidence that refutes Catholic dogma will always draw sharp criticism from those who dearly love the Catholic Church. But for those who are willing to listen to the evidence and evaluate for themselves what is true, compelling evidence against Catholic doctrine will be heeded.
The real presence doctrine of the Catholic Church was, in fact, unheard of in the early centuries of the Christian church. It is interesting to think about how central the sacrifice of the mass is in Catholicism, and yet nowhere in early church do we find direct reference to it; only obscure evidence that, when taken in context, proves to be evidence to the contrary.
Test all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
about 6 months ago
You also might want to consider this writing of Cyprian:
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.”,
about 6 months ago
That quote shows the progression of the doctrine. That sort of progression of doctrine can also be seen in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 6 Chapter 44.
about 6 months ago
If the Catholic Church did not originally believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, when did the Catholics change their faith on the Eucharist?
about 6 months ago
Not until around the middle of the fourth century.
Serapion of Thmius (mid fourth century) refers to the bread as “the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten,” and wine as “the likeness of His Blood.” (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (13:4)
During the same period, Cyril of Jerusalem uses language that sounds very much like he believed the bread and wine became the literal flesh and blood of Christ.
“Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed [given] to you.” (Catechetical Lectures 22:6)
It’s interesting though that in one place Cyril referred to the Eucharist as “antitypical body and blood of Christ.” (Lecture 23:20) Not exactly sure what he meant by that.
about 6 months ago
Excellent, I saved this work for reference. My only question is this, which comes from a typical Catholic/Orthodox argument: if the Real Presence was an innovation, why weren’t there any protests of it when it was “invented”, and also, how is such a false doctrine found in so many locations (i.e. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc)?
about 6 months ago
I wouldn’t call it an innovation, but rather a gradual permeation like leaven in dough. It’s quite similar to the way the Marian doctrines sprung up from ignorance, gained popularity and were finally inducted into the hall of Sacred Tradition.
As early as the mid second century Irenaeus remarked how certain believers who were slaves imagined that the divine communion was actually flesh and blood. They believed this because they had heard their masters call it the body and Blood of Christ. In the third century we see an increased reverence towards the Eucharist, but nothing that could be construed into evidence for real presence without implementing a good deal of imagination.
In the fourth century things progressed a bit faster. In an early fourth century eastern liturgy called, the Constitutions of the Apostles, we find evidence of the level of reverence paid the element of communion.
“After this let the sacrifice follow, the people standing, and praying silently; and when the oblation has been made, let every rank by itself partake of the Lord’s body and precious blood in order, and approach with reverence and holy fear, as to the body of their king. Let the women approach with their heads covered, as is becoming the order of women; but let the door be watched, lest any unbeliever, or one not yet initiated, come in.” (2:7)
But in the same time period we find Lactantius describing the Eucharist exactly as Justin did nearly 200 years earlier, that is, as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
“There are two things which ought to be offered, the gift Donum, a free-will offering or gift and the sacrifice; the gift as a perpetual offering, the sacrifice for a time. But with those who by no means understand the nature of the Divine Being, a gift is anything which is wrought of gold or silver; likewise anything which is woven of purple and silk: a sacrifice is a victim, and as many things as are burnt upon the altar. But God does not make use either of the one or the other, because He is free from corruption, and that is altogether corruptible. Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen. Therefore no other religion is true but that which consists of virtue and justice…For we ought to sacrifice to God in word; inasmuch as God is the Word, as He Himself confessed. Therefore the chief ceremonial in the worship of God is praise from the mouth of a just man directed towards God.” (Divine Institutions, 6:25)
We find even more seemingly contrary opinions in the mid fourth century following the council of Nicea, which served to unify the church. Serapion of Thmius (Egypt) in a Eucharistic prayer said this:
“Lord of virtues, full also is this sacrifice, with Your strength and Your communion; for to You we offer this living sacrifice, this un-bloody oblation. To You we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying. “Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.” On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church
We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lard Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten and He said to His disciples, “Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.” For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood.” (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:3-4)
But then the very next sentence says this:
“O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this bread, that the bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the blood of the Truth.”
And during the same time Cyril of Jerusalem made this remark:
“Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed [given] to you” (Catechetical Lectures 22:6)
There is no firm declaration of real presence by the mid fourth century, but the wheels were defiantly in motion. I have not researched beyond this point, but it seems reasonable that if the progression carried on the doctrine of real presence (i.e. transubstantiation) would eventually become dogma, which, as we know, was the case.