Expert: Sal - 9/12/2005

Question
SAL:  I have recently heard somewhere that even the early church fathers (they were specifically tallking about the pre-Constantine era) viewed taking the Eucharist as a symbol of the body of Jesus Christ, that is, they didn't wholly believe that it WAS His body.  Is that true?  And they went on to say that it was only later in the church development that they stated that it is in fact God into Bread, or the Real Presence.  Can you elaborate?  Thanks!

Answer
Dear AJ:

There are a few statements from an extremely small number of Church Fathers that could be understood to reflect a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. These few statements may actually refer to the external observable characteristics of the bread and wine not to the unseen reality of the Real Presence. The bread and the wine once consecrated are primarily the Body and Blood of our Lord. Perhaps they can be said to secondarily represent in a symbolic way the flesh and blood of Jesus. However, I do not believe that these few statements were ever meant to be denials of the Real Presence. They certainly cannot be taken as representative of the teaching of the Early Church Fathers.

These few statements were made by Tertullian, Origen, St. Hippolytus of Rome, and St. Cyprian of Carthage. We know that the Church never understood the statements of Hippolytus and Cyprian to be denying the Real Presence or they never would have been named as saints. So let's look at what Tertullian and Origen had to say about the Eucharist that may help us to clarify their positions on the Real Presence.

Both men wrote of the great reverence that we must have for the consecrated bread and wine. This hardly seems fitting if they believed that the bread and wine were merely symbols. “We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground” (Tertullian, 211AD). “You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Origen, 244 AD). It is readily apparent that neither man denied the Real Presence. One would certainly not be so concerned with whether a particle of a symbol fell to the ground. For example, Baptists do not care if a particle of their communion cracker falls to the ground.

The first controversy in the Church concerning the Real Presence occurred in the 830's. A monk named Ratramus wrote about the Eucharist. Due to the fact that he used imprecise language he mislead some to believe that he was denying the Real Presence. Ratramus cleared up the controversy with the result being that he did not deny what the Church had always believed about the Eucharist.

The first actual denial of the Real Presence occurred around the year 1047. Berengarius of Tours denied that the consecrated bead and wine were truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Church quickly rose up and defended her belief against this heresy. Much to his credit, Berengarius publicly admitted his error and recanted his heretical statements in 1059 before the Council of Rome.

The Protestant Revolt in the 16th century saw the first unrepentant denial of the Real Presence. This heresy was strongly led by Zwingli of Zurich. Luther actually defended the traditional teaching of the Real Presence, albeit with many misrepresentations.

So what did the Early Church Fathers actually teach about the Eucharist? St. Ignatius of Antioch in speaking of heretics stated, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 110 AD). We can say that prior to this letter it was already the understanding of the early Church that to deny the Real Presence was a heresy. St. Justin the Martyr was crystal clear in expounding what the early Church taught concerning the Eucharist.  “We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus” (First Apology, 148 AD). St. Irenaeus noted, “For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity” (Against Heresies, 180 AD).

Further we read concerning the important passage in John's Gospel were Jesus announces his plan to give us the Real Presence, the following from Church Fathers:

“'Eat My Flesh', he says, ‘and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!” (St. Clement of Alexandria, 202 AD). If the Eucharist were only a symbol he would not have deemed it an “incredible mystery”.

“Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the Flesh of the Word of God, as He Himself says, ‘My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly drink'” (Origen, 244 AD).

“And we ask that this bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive the Eucharist as the food of salvation, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body” (St. Cyprian, 251 AD). The Eucharist is called “the food of salvation”. Would St. Cyprian say that a symbol is necessary for salvation? Would he say that not receiving a symbol would separate one from Christ's Body?

All the above quotes of the Early Church Fathers are prior to the Constantine era. So you can see that the idea that the Church Fathers prior to the Constantine era did not believe in the Real presence is without factual basis.

Thanks for the question. If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to ask.

God Bless You,
Sal