The Eucharist in New Testament Christianity Part VI
I. Introduction
I believe that I have provided strong reasons from both Scripture and Christian philosophy to show that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ. When we turn to church history, however, specifically, the ancient church, the evidence from Historical Theology is further clear about the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
An entire book could be written on the Early Church and the Eucharist. Many scholars of Early Christianity, agree, however, that the early unanimously supported the belief in the real presence of Christ at the Eucharist. It is also well known that many of them emphasized the Eucharist as the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. In this post, I will merely provide a small overview of evidence from the ancient church to prove that it understood the Eucharist as a true sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood.
II. The Early Church and the Eucharist
Most scholars consider the early church to be the church of the first three hundred years or the first four centuries of church history. While the church fathers did not define many theological issues in depth that later theologians would, the Eucharist was very central to their understanding of Christianity.
Patristic scholar Everett Ferguson notes, ''Although Greek theologians, such as Athanasius and the two Gregorys, expressed their soteriology mainly in terms of divination, the re-creation of the perfect humanity through the incarnation and teachings of Christ, they did use sacrificial language (Everret, 1016).''
As another patristic scholar, Mike Aquilina, notes of Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, ''Ignatius identified the denial of the Eucharist as the very mark of heresy (Aquilina, 76).''
Indeed, listen to Ignatius's own words about the gnostic heretics who denied the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ:
''Let no man deceive himself. For both the beings of heaven, the glorious angels, and the rulers, both seen and unseen, incur condemnation if they do not believe in the blood of Christ...(Aquilina, 77).''
Ignatius later continues speaking of the heresies of the gnostics:
''They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to bear the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, in his goodness, raided up again (Aquilina, 77).''
There is an overwhelming testimony of quotes and passages from the church fathers (and I don't just mean those after Emperor Constantine), demonstrating the Ealry church's understanding of the Eucharist to be a true and real sacrifice. This view was hardly contested by most theologians in the first millennium of the church's existence.
III. Augustine and the Medieval West
It was during the Middle Ages, that many of the divisions within Christianity truly started. The Medieval world saw the gradual split of the Eastern and Western Churches from one another. It was also during this time, that the roots of the Protestant Reformation began. Still, most in Western Christendom were unified on most of theology until 1517.
In the latter part of the Middle Ages, some theologians had the tendency to explain all of theology through Aristolean philosophy. At first, this was met with controversy and rejection, though it eventually became quite mainstream among Western thought.
Many Calvinists do not realize it, but their tendency to explain all areas of theology through philosophy derives from their Roman Catholic roots. Interestingly enough, most theologians before the latter half of the Middle Ages, though, did not see the importance of Aristotle's thought within theology. In this way, Thomas Aquinas, by relying significantly on Aristotle, differed from church fathers like Athanasius of Alexandria and Ambrose of Milan. Indeed, most Western theologians traditionally
This does not make philosophy wrong. Paul used it to evangelize the Greeks in Acts 17. Rather, I am making the point that the Western Church for the last seven hundred years or so, has turned more and more to rationalism to explain concepts of the faith that cannot be explained by reason. This is especially became the case by the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century.
Western theology, of course, does not begin with Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Augustine of Hippo, Jerome of Rome, and Ambrose of Milan all preceded the Western movements in theology toward Aristotelian philosophy.
Now, some have claimed that Augustine held the same view as John Calvin, which is belief in a real presence of Christ at the Eucharist, though not a physical presence. Personally, I accept this view as orthodox as it has been accepted by many throughout church history. That said, a strong argument can be made that Augustine had a literal view of the Eucharist. As evidence of this, Augustine not only calls the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ but sees the Eucharist as an actual sacrifice. In Augustine's own writings, he refers to the Eucharist as ''The sacrifice of the altar,'' ''the sacrifice of the mass*1'', etc.
Does this mean that Augustine believed in Transubstantiation? Ultimately, it depends on how one person defines that term.
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 was far less specific about the meaning of Transubstantion than was the later Council of Trent. As the Middle Ages went on, many medievals attempted to use Aristotelian Philosophy to explain how the Mass still looked like wine and bread even as it became the Body and Blood of Christ. When one examines the definition of Transusbsttion by the Fourth Lateran Council compared to that of Trent, it is easy to see how the latter delved into many more details than did the former. Most in the Eastern church, however, never felt the need to explain this mystery.
If Transubstantiation is defined as a representation of Christ's Body and Blood (without Him being crucified again) in the Eucharist and how it is spiritual nourishment for our souls if we receive it worthily, then this has been, I believe the historic teaching of the church for two thousand years. Certainly, many respectable theologians before the Reformation held to Consubstantiation and Receptionism, but few, if any, held to Memorialism.
Eastern Orthodox do not typically use Aristotelian Philosophy to explain the meaning of the Eucharist. In this way, they are closer to the church fathers on the Eucharist than were many Western theologians in the later Middle Ages. Since the late Middle Ages, many Catholics and Protestants alike have attempted to philosophically explain why the Eucharist still looks like bread and wine when Scripture teaches it to be more. However, most of the church simply accepted that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood without explaining why it does not appear as Christ's Body and Blood. In this sense, Transubstantiation, as defined by Aristotelian Philosophy, while providing interesting theories, lacks earlier understandings of the Eucharist as was believed by most Christians East and West for the first two thousand years.
There were many abuses with Transubstantiation which will be discussed in the following post. Among them, will be how the Roman Catholic Church came to deny the cup of salvation (Psalm 116: 13, Luke 22: 20). However, for now, it's important to distinguish the earlier understanding of Transubstantiation which merely asserted Christ's Body and Blood at the Eucharist from many of the later understandings this view, which relied heavily on ancient Greek Philosophy.
Transubstantiation was a controversial issue during the Reformation. Sadly, many Roman Catholics abused it. Tragically, many Protestants came to reject the idea of the Sacrificial Mass entirely, even though most Christians believed this until the sixteenth century. Two extremes gradually formed; one which embraced the idea that the Eucharist could be explained all by man's philosophy, and the other, which denied it to be the literal Sacrifice of Christ.
During the Middle Ages and the Reformation that followed it, the simplistic understanding of the Eucharist as a meal of Christ's sacrifice ceased into many theological philosophies od different sects within Western Christianity. This further contributed to some of the divisions in the church today.
IV: Final Thoughts
Two wrongs don't make one right. In Eastern Orthdoxy's approach to the Eucharist, both Protestants and Catholics will find Eastern Christianity to have retained the same view of the Eucharist for the past two thousand years.
On this note, Eastern Orthodoxy has remained Biblical. It retains the view of Paul the Apostle and the ancient fathers that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, without relying upon later philosophies to explain the great mysteries of Christ Himself.
References:
Ferguson, Everett. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. (1998). Garland Publishing.
Notes:
It is interesting of how the view of Transubstantiation grew from The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 to the Council of Trent. Great info!
ReplyDelete