On the Reality of the Eucharist: Part Two

So, to recap, we have four "basic" understandings that we could take from those three passages:

1. Eucharist is a command and the real flesh and blood of Christ.
2. Communion is a command, but is metaphorical.
3. Communion is not a command, but is real flesh and blood.
4. Communion is not a command, and was just symbolic.

Number three seems the least likely to be forwarded, but remains plausible from a strictly textual standpoint.

I have a few passages from various early church fathers to post here, and I'll explain them after the jump:
Clement, a presbyter-bishop in Rome in the later-half of the first century AD, wrote a letter to Corinth around 97 AD. Second century commentators believed this Clement to be the same one found in Phil 4:3, a companion of Paul's. This seems plausible (he may have followed Paul to Rome, where he was appointed as one overseer of the Church there), but there are no other sources to confirm nor deny it.

Regardless, Clement writes from a community that was formed and taught by TWO significant Apostles: Peter and Paul. He writes the following in Section 40 - 41 of his letter:

"It follows, then, that there ought to be strict order and method in our performance of such acts as the Master has prescribed for certain times and seasons... In the same way [as the Temple services], my brothers, when we offer our Eucharist to God, each one of us should keep to his own degree. His conscience must be clear, he must not infringe the rules prescribed for his ministering, and he is to bear himself with reverence."

You can hear the echoes of Paul's commands surrounding the communion of 1 Corinthians. Most significantly - this eliminates options 3 and 4. The Eucharist was viewed by the immediate descendants of the Apostles as a command to be carried out "at certain times and seasons." A divine command, no less. Fortunately, that view is entirely compatible with scripture, as seen in options one and two.

Another source: Ignatius of Antioch - appointed as the bishop there in the later-half of the 1st century as successor to Peter and Paul in Antioch. He was appointed quite young, and lived until around 107 AD, when he was martyred in Rome. He left us a number of letters, of which I will quote 3:

Letter to the Ephesians:

"... how much more fortunate must I count you, who are as inseparably one with [your bishop] as the Church is with Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ with the Father; so constituting one single harmonious unity throughout. Let no one be under any illusion; a man who excludes himself from the sanctuary is depriving himself of the bread of God, for if the prayer of one or two individuals has such efficacy, how much more powerful is that of the bishop together with his whole church. Anyone who absents himself from the congregation convicts himself at once of arrogance and becomes self-excommunicate... the Lord reveals to me that you are all, man by man and name by name, attending your meetings in a state of grace, united in faith and in Jesus Christ (who is the seed of David according to the flesh, and is the Son of Man and the Son of God), and are ready now to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of the bread - the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore."

Once again, we see that Eucharist was viewed as a command, and while this passage doesn't comment on the "is it really flesh" issue (it focuses on bread), it does discuss two aspects that are relevant to our discussion:

1. It is unitive (the meetings, prayers and bread unite the Church - this could be seen symbolically, but seems to have a literal sense here. It's not conclusive, though).
2. It is salvific (the medicine of immortality). This last bit is particularly relevant, since now we have an early church father commenting on the Eucharist as life-giving - this confirms the understanding of John 6 (the bread of life) as a reference to Eucharist (the bread of communion), and seems to confirm that when Christ said "real flesh" and "real drink" in reference to His body and blood and their giving "everlasting life" He WAS referring to the Eucharist. That was a "possible" understanding of the John 6 text; Ignatius confirms the link. Keep in mind that Ignatius and the Apostle John were writing within 13 years of one another. The link in language is contextually strengthened.

Ignatius also wrote a letter to the Roman Church:

"Earthly longings have been crucified; in me there is left no spark of desire for mundane things, but only a murmur of living water that whispers within me, 'Come to the Father.' There is no pleasure for me in any meats that perish, or in the delights of this life; I am fain for the bread of God, even the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for my drink I crave that blood of His, which is love imperishable."

The bread is flesh; the blood isn't directly related to wine, though (only to love). One could see this as a poetic implication (completing the Eucharistic reference), but I don't desire to force this on the text. Chock one up tentatively for the pro-Eucharist crowd and let's look at another quote from Ignatius in his letter to Philadelphia:

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with His blood, and one single altar of sacrifice - even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God."

The Eucharist here is called body and blood, without any reference at all to bread and wine (except in so far as it mentions a cup). This is the best statement yet, chock another one up for Eucharist being the body and blood (at least in the view of Ignatius - who knew Peter and Paul personally).

One more... I promise! This one was written to Smyrna:

"They [the heretics] even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again. Consequently, since they reject God's good gifts, they are doomed in their disputatiousness."

That confirms the above. I could see someone arguing against it (as always, texts are subjectively interpreted), but it seems fairly conclusive that Ignatius taught that the Eucharist was the body of Christ, and that this was a command to continue it. Given the fact that this was a possible interpretation of scripture as we presented in the previous post, it's NOT a contradiction of scripture, but where scripture isn't entirely clear or is open to multiple interpretations, tradition (as indicated by Clement and Ignatius) can be useful in indicating which understanding we ought to accept and which one we ought to reject.

Yet, did this tradition continue? Does it pass the second test for Holy Tradition (the first being antiquity of belief, the second being continuity of belief) and show itself to have survived the centuries of the Church in a continuous line (in other words, was it genuinely a tradition, passed from one generation to the next)?

I could show you quotes from second century authors like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, or third century authors like Cyprian of Carthage or Hippolytus of Rome, but I'll assume you'll take me at my word that its present there. Let me know if you'd like me to post those and I will oblige.

The fourth century saw our liturgy begin to take shape - what follows is a quote from the current liturgy that may date as far back as the fourth century (it is difficult to tell, but this is present in a number of early liturgies, including the Liturgy of St. James):

Priest: "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered, and make this bread the body of Thy Christ."
People: "Amen."
Priest: "And this make this cup the blood of Thy Christ."
People: "Amen."
Priest: "Making the change by Thy Holy Spirit."
People: "Amen, Amen, Amen." (At which all people and celebrants bow prostrate to the floor)

The prostration indicates that at this moment, in a special way, the King of the Universe is present, incarnate, in the gifts. We bow to Him.

Let's jump forward again - to the 11th century, and Blessed Theophylact, who sought to summarize the Patristic (early church father's) understanding of the Gospels. Again, ask and I'll find linking quotes from the 4th to 11th centuries - I'm assuming you'll take me at my word that the Orthodox Church of that time believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Theopylact comments on Matt 26:

"By saying 'This is My body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lord's Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but, 'This is My Body.' By ineffable action it is changed, though it may appear to us as bread."

Skip on up to today. When I go to church, I am taught that this understanding (option 1 in the beginning of this post) is the correct understanding of the Gospel passage, John 6, and 1 Corinthians when they discuss the communion. I read this in theological books, I hear it from living sources - my priest, my Orthodox friends, the monastery I visit, my bishop. I read it in the gospels, for having been discipled to this tradition, I see that despite the fact that there are many possible understandings of the text in isolation (due to the natural ambiguity of written words, my own subjectivity and finitude, and many other factors already mentioned) there is only one, true, traditional way of understanding that passage. The Eucharist has, since the infancy of the Church, been believed to be the body and blood of Christ in truth. This is Holy Tradition. It does not stand IN CONTRAST to scripture or ABOVE scripture, but INFORMS the way we understand Scripture and guides us to the correct understanding so that, at last, it becomes "useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If I were to depart from this traditional understanding of the Eucharist and the Eucharistic passages of scripture, I would be setting up false teachers for myself, departing from the faith, self-excommunicating myself.

I would be the person St. Peter spoke of when he said, "... in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of Scripture." To avoid that, I must be taught. I must be taught.  That implies a living teaching. This is tradition.

Hopefully, this clarifies what we mean. We don't mean "tradition" as an excuse to pass of any doctrine we see fit to select. It is, rather, the safeguard by which we correctly interpret and understand the scriptures, keeping us close to the apostolic teaching and the salvation that comes by that Truth, which Christ handed to the apostles, and the apostles to the Church, of which we are members.

In Christ,

Macarius