The Early Church and the Eucharist

Growing up, I was always taught that communion, the Lord's Supper, was simply a symbolic gesture. It's a nice little way of remembering that Jesus died for us--that His body was broken like the bread that the Pastor breaks apart in the front of the Sanctuary and that His blood was poured out like the juice in the communion trays with all those little plastic cups.

When I first ran into Catholic Theology on the issue and was informed that the bread--the little wafer--was literally the body of the Lord and the wine was literally his blood, I was, honestly, amused. I really couldn't imagine how in the world thinking people could read Jesus' words at the Last Supper (This is my Body and Blood) and come away thinking Jesus was speaking literally. I mean really, the whole thing was ridiculous. It made no sense.

Well, curious to find out what the earliest Christians believed, I started scouring the internet looking for full texts from these early Church Fathers. And what I found was amazing--something I never expected: The earliest Christians were Catholic in theology--at least in terms of the Eucharist. From what I could see, the Catholic Church in its earliest form took the doctrine of the Eucharist and preserved it just as Jesus taught it even though they didn't always understand it. We Protestants on the other hand seem to have taken that same doctrine and changed it in order to make it easier to understand.

Below you'll find just a few of the available writings. Read them for yourself and voice your disagreements or whatever in the comments. (The full texts of these documents can be found by following the links--I'm trying to quote a significant portion of text to give a feeling for the context, but, by all means, click the links and dig deeper.)

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c.50-117 AD)
Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch (Peter was the 1st) and it's commonly thought that he actually listened to the teaching of the Apostle John.

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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.

Epistle to the Smyraens, Ch.7 (AD 110)

Ignatius states the Docetists he was writing against rejected the Eucharist because they didn't believe it was the flesh of Jesus. He then goes one step farther and shows that he's not speaking of symbolic flesh when he writes "which suffered for our sins."

To say that he's speaking symbolically would be to say that Christ's death was only symbolic. He's as convinced that the Eucharist is the actual flesh of Christ as he is that Christ died in the flesh.

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Epistle to the Smyraens, Ch.8 (AD 110)

This quote is interesting because this is the earliest written reference to the Church as the Catholic Church. And the way he words it, it's pretty clear that this isn't the first time the title or name was ever used. In all likelihood it was being referred to in this manner well before the date of this writing.

Also interesting is the mention of an established church hierarchy. (Ignatius' letters to the Churches--all written quickly as he was being marched through the country toward his martyrdom--contain many references to an established hierarchy and even refer to Apostolic Succession--but that's another post.)


Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD)
Justin Martyr was an early Christian Apologist writing around 148 - 150 AD or so.

This first quote is from his First Apology where he's writing to the Roman Emperor to explain what Christianity really was. It's interesting that there were rumors circulating that the Christians were cannibals and Justin was writing to clarify. (In all likelihood, the charges of cannibalism came from the secular world's misunderstanding of the Christian teaching of the Eucharist).

Here, Justin writes about what Church was like in early Christianity and then he goes on to describe the Eucharist:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, [Baptism] and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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 by the Word of God, had both 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.

First Apology, Ch.LXVI

St. Ireneaus of Lyons (c.120-180 AD)
Ireneaus was the Bishop of Lyons. Little is known of his life, but one thing that is almost certain is that he listened to the Bishop Polycarp, who himself was a hearer of the Apostle John (the author, by the way, of the Gospel that most clearly describes the Eucharist in terms of Jesus' body and blood).

But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world.

Against Heresies, Bk.4, Ch.18, Paragraph 4

When Christ visited us in his grace, he did not come to what did not belong to him: also, by shedding his true blood for us, and exhibiting to us his true flesh in the Eucharist, he conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.

Against Heresies, Bk.5, Ch.2 Introduction

The one thing worth pointing out here is that Ireneaus ties together Jesus' true blood which He shed for us and Jesus' true flesh which is in the Eucharist. In his mind, Ireneaus is as sure that the flesh in the Eucharist is as authentic as the blood that was shed. If one is meant symbolically, then, by the very structure of the sentence, the other must also be symbolic.

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins."

Against Heresies, Bk.5, Ch.2, Paragraph 2

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?

Against Heresies, Bk. 5, Ch.2, Paragraph 3