What did the early Church Fathers think about the Eucharist? Did they think the bread of the Lord's Supper was merely a symbol of the Lord's body? That the wine was just a good way to remember that Jesus shed his real blood for us? Or, did they think the bread really became His body and the wine His blood? In short, did they hold to a Protestant interpretation or something more decidedly Catholic?
Here's a short quote from St. Ireneaus from his Adversus Haereses written sometime between 180 and 199 AD. However, first let me quickly explain that St. Ireneaus was the second Bishop of Lyons and had been a pupil, while a young man, of St. Polycarp. (St. Polycarp, just to put it all in perspective, is considered an Apostolic Church Father since he had been a hearer of the Apostle John).
Here's the quote:
That's it. A short quote, but one that's remarkably profound in meaning. In this quote, St. Ireneaus makes it perfectly clear that he is not talking about any kind of mere "symbolic" presence of Jesus. The bread doesn't "represent" Jesus' body. It doesn't "symbolize" Jesus' body. It doesn't provide us with an amazing visual of how Jesus' body was broken for us.
No, according to Ireneaus--as early as the year 180 AD--the bread literally WAS the body of the Lord.
And we see this when we look at the logic of his argument: If Jesus didn't come from God, St. Ireneaus is saying, then how in the world could he take bread and confess it to be his body? If He wasn't from God, how could he say the mixture in the cup was His blood?
Ireneaus' argument only makes sense if he is assuming that the bread truly becomes Jesus' literal body and the wine His blood. Ireneaus' words mean nothing if he adopted a Protestant mindset about Christ's body figuratively being represented by the bread.
If he thought the Eucharist a merely symbolic representation of Christ's body (as most of us Protestants do), his argument could be summarized as such: if the Lord wasn't from God, the Father, then He couldn't say that bread figuratively represented His body.
And it doesn't take too much study or understanding to see that that statement doesn't make a lot of sense. No, there can be no merely symbolic Christ in the Eucharist for Ireneaus because ANYBODY can hold up a hunk of bread and say "this symbolizes my body." Any one of us could hold up a glass of wine and say "this is very much like my blood." However, only God could work such a miracle as to take those common elements and actually MAKE them into His body and blood. Hence his argument that Jesus HAD to be from the Father.
Now, it's important to point out that just because St. Ireneaus thought the Eucharist was Jesus' body and blood doesn't mean it really is. The writings of St. Ireneaus, while important and useful, are not necessarily inspired and are definitely not considered "scripture."
However, it is also important to understand and come to terms with the reality that many of us Protestants have been taught a tradition that might not be as true as we think. For me, that's definitely the case. I've been taught that the Protestant Church is more "authentic." That it's more like the church of the Apostles. I've read over and over that the early Protestant Reformers scraped away the barnacles that accumulated on the hull after Christianity became a "sanctioned" religion under Constantine.
And yet here we have solid proof--and believe me, there's much more where this came from--that the second and third generation Christians (and the Christians who taught them) believed in a very Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
Here's a short quote from St. Ireneaus from his Adversus Haereses written sometime between 180 and 199 AD. However, first let me quickly explain that St. Ireneaus was the second Bishop of Lyons and had been a pupil, while a young man, of St. Polycarp. (St. Polycarp, just to put it all in perspective, is considered an Apostolic Church Father since he had been a hearer of the Apostle John).
Here's the quote:
If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could He rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be His body, and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His blood? (Adversus Haereses, 4, 33, 2)
That's it. A short quote, but one that's remarkably profound in meaning. In this quote, St. Ireneaus makes it perfectly clear that he is not talking about any kind of mere "symbolic" presence of Jesus. The bread doesn't "represent" Jesus' body. It doesn't "symbolize" Jesus' body. It doesn't provide us with an amazing visual of how Jesus' body was broken for us.
No, according to Ireneaus--as early as the year 180 AD--the bread literally WAS the body of the Lord.
And we see this when we look at the logic of his argument: If Jesus didn't come from God, St. Ireneaus is saying, then how in the world could he take bread and confess it to be his body? If He wasn't from God, how could he say the mixture in the cup was His blood?
Ireneaus' argument only makes sense if he is assuming that the bread truly becomes Jesus' literal body and the wine His blood. Ireneaus' words mean nothing if he adopted a Protestant mindset about Christ's body figuratively being represented by the bread.
If he thought the Eucharist a merely symbolic representation of Christ's body (as most of us Protestants do), his argument could be summarized as such: if the Lord wasn't from God, the Father, then He couldn't say that bread figuratively represented His body.
And it doesn't take too much study or understanding to see that that statement doesn't make a lot of sense. No, there can be no merely symbolic Christ in the Eucharist for Ireneaus because ANYBODY can hold up a hunk of bread and say "this symbolizes my body." Any one of us could hold up a glass of wine and say "this is very much like my blood." However, only God could work such a miracle as to take those common elements and actually MAKE them into His body and blood. Hence his argument that Jesus HAD to be from the Father.
Now, it's important to point out that just because St. Ireneaus thought the Eucharist was Jesus' body and blood doesn't mean it really is. The writings of St. Ireneaus, while important and useful, are not necessarily inspired and are definitely not considered "scripture."
However, it is also important to understand and come to terms with the reality that many of us Protestants have been taught a tradition that might not be as true as we think. For me, that's definitely the case. I've been taught that the Protestant Church is more "authentic." That it's more like the church of the Apostles. I've read over and over that the early Protestant Reformers scraped away the barnacles that accumulated on the hull after Christianity became a "sanctioned" religion under Constantine.
And yet here we have solid proof--and believe me, there's much more where this came from--that the second and third generation Christians (and the Christians who taught them) believed in a very Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
No comments:
Post a Comment