Pints With Aquinas - What Early Christians Believed About The Eucharist

Episode Date: July 3, 2020

See Script with references here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/38832807 What the Scripture says about the Eucharist: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-eucharist/ See MORE quotes from the early Christians on the Eucharist: https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-real-presence and https://www.churchfathers.org/the-real-presence Please support Pints With Aquinas on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS  Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/  MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist... Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecr... The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myt...

Catholics and Protestants have different views about the Eucharist. Catholics like myself believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that Jesus is literally and wholly present, body and blood, soul and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine, a view known as transubstantiation. In Protestant circles, there is a range of views. While most Protestants don't believe in transubstantiation, a majority do believe in some form of the real presence. The belief that Christ's body and blood are really present in the Eucharist

is common in Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist circles. In Calvinist circles, it is more common to say that Christ's body and blood are spiritually received in the Eucharist. And in Baptist circles, it is believed that the bread and wine only symbolize Christ's body and blood are spiritually received in the Eucharist, and in Baptist circles it is believed that the bread and wine only symbolize Christ's body and blood. In other words, they hold that when Christ said, this is my body, this is my blood, that he was speaking metaphorically. While the views vary in their details, they fall into two broad classes. The belief that Christ's body and blood are really present in the Eucharist, and that they are not, meaning that they are only spiritually or symbolically present.

Now, when Catholics and Protestants debate which view is correct, each side has its list of scriptural texts at the ready. The Catholic, and many Protestants, might point to John 6.53, where our Lord says, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. What more do you need, says the Catholic? While a Protestant who takes the symbolic view may retort, yes, but in verse 63, Jesus explains that his words are meant to be interpreted spiritually. It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have It is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no

avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. And then we go back and forth about why the scripture our interlocutor is citing doesn't actually prove what he thinks it does. Fine. The Bible is the word of God, and it is obviously a good thing when Christians want to be faithful to it. But my point is this, both faithful Catholics and Protestants know what the Bible says, but we don't agree on what it means. Now one way of solving this problem is to look more closely at the details of the text. However we need to be sure that we are reading the text the way that the ancient audience did and that means it's useful to the way that the ancient audience did, and that means it's useful to look to what the earliest Christians believed.

If, for example, the earliest Christians believed that when Christ said, this is my body, this is my blood, he meant it metaphorically, and the Catholic belief in the real literal presence is completely unheard of until the Middle Ages, then it would make sense to me to go with the more ancient interpretation. Conversely, if it can be shown that the early church did believe unanimously in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the view that the Eucharist is merely a symbol was basically unheard of until the last few centuries, well, then again, I think it makes more sense to go with that ancient belief.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not equating the writings of the early Christians with the Bible. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God. The writings of the early Christians are not. Individual early Christian writers no doubt believed in even taught errors. But the early church fathers were closer in time and culture to the apostles, and they shed important light on the question of how the original audience would have understood the text. Also, what they wrote concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is what was handed on to them from the Apostolic Age, and they handed that down to us through a

hundred successive generations. So, what did they hand down to us? We only have time in this short video to take a look at four early Christians, but in the description below I'm going to share many more more so please be sure to check that out. The first early Christian we'll look at is St. Ignatius of Antioch who lived in the first century and likely heard the preaching of the apostles, particularly St. John. Ignatius was named Bishop of Antioch during a time when being a Christian in the Roman Empire was punishable by death and he was actually sentenced to public execution by wild beasts. In his letter

to the Christians at Smyrna, he tells them not to associate with certain Gnostic heretics who denied that Christ really became man. In it, he discusses the Eucharist. Here's what he says. Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. 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. Next, we'll look at Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, who was named Bishop of Jerusalem in AD 350 and who participated at the Council of Constantinople in 381. He was a great defender of the faith against the heresy of Arianism, which is the idea that there was a time when God the Son did not exist.

Here's what Saint Cyril wrote about the Eucharist. The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine. But the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ. The third early Christian I want to look at is St. Ambrose of Milan, who was named Bishop of Milan in AD 374. It was St. Ambrose who helped save St. Augustine from remaining a Gnostic heretic. Listen to what Ambrose has to say.

Perhaps you may be saying, I see something else. How can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ? It but remains for us to prove it. How many are the examples we might use? Christ is in that sacrament because it is the body of Christ. The fourth and final early Christian I want to look at is Saint Augustine, who was named Bishop of Hippo in modern Algeria in AD 396 and is held in great esteem by both Catholics and Protestants alike. Here's what he had to say about the Eucharist. What you see is the bread and the chalice. That is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice. That is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to

accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This short list of four early Christians is enough for now, but you can find more quotes in the description below. Of these four early Christians, one lived in the first century and likely heard the preaching of the apostles themselves during the time of the early persecutions of Christians, and the other three lived in the fourth and fifth centuries during a time of great confusion in the church. When Saint Ignatius lived, the church was still illegal, but by the time the others lived, the church had already been legalized throughout the empire. Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in AD 313 with the Edict of Milan, and the Emperor Theodosius

made it the official religion of the empire in 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica. These early Christians lived through all that. Given the turbulent times in which they lived, we might expect that there would be different opinions on the nature of the Eucharist, with some Christians saying it's the real presence of Christ and other people saying it's not. But that's just it. There isn't any record of such disputes. Nowhere in the writings of the early church do we see any Christian holding to the view that the Eucharist is merely a symbol.

If someone had, it would have come up in a synod or a council somewhere, and there would have been a challenge to the doctrine among the Christians themselves. But it didn't come up because Christians accepted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The first major controversy concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist involved a theologian named Berengarius of Tours who lived during the 11th century. However, even though he believed that the bread and wine remain after the consecration, it isn't clear that he denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Another 300 years passed after that before Christianity stepped on the threshold of what became known as the Protestant Reformation. John Wycliffe in the 14th century tried unsuccessfully to revive Berengarius' views by appealing to the early church. However, while Wycliffe did deny the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation, he also used language supporting the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. This illustrates how, as I've said, you cannot find a single early

Christian challenging the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is something that Protestant reformer Martin Luther acknowledged. Listen to what he had to say. Of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them use such an expression as, it is simply bread and wine, or Christ's body and blood are not present. Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, it is simply bread, or not that the body of Christ is physically present, or the like. So, if as late as, and including Martin Luther, the Christian world still believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, how did the notion that it wasn't there resurge?

Two Protestant reformers, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, popularized and expanded upon the views of Wycliffe. In fact, Calvin went so far as to call belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist a devil's doctrine, claiming that Christ is not really present in the bread and the wine. Zwingli and Calvin both believed the value of the Eucharist is that it helps the faithful obtain the spiritual presence of Christ. In short, they proclaimed the Eucharist as only spiritual or symbolic. Given that the notion that Christ isn't really present in the Eucharist is a recent notion, and given that there's no support of it in the early church,

we must ask ourselves whether God would really allow his church to be in error on this point for so many centuries. If we have confidence that God has been guiding his church in the true faith from the beginning, the idea that Christ is only symbolically present in the Eucharist looks like a departure from the historic faith. In any case, many non-Catholic Christians are beginning to realize this, that the understanding of the Eucharist as the real presence of Christ is one of the fundamental teachings of the early Christians, of those who walked with Christ and who engaged in the theological debates about everything under the sun, except for this one point.

Evangelical pastor Francis Chan recently said, I didn't know that for the first 1500 years of church history, everyone saw communion as the literal body and blood of Christ. And it wasn't until 500 years ago that someone popularized a thought that it's just a symbol and nothing more. And this is not only being recognized by Protestant pastors, but by Protestant scholars as well. Darrell Stone, for example, wrote, Throughout the writings of the Fathers there is unbroken agreement that the consecrated bread and wine are the Body and Blood of of Christ and that the Eucharist is a

sacrifice. Another Protestant scholar, J. N. D. Kelly, wrote, Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist. That is, the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be and were treated and designated as the Savior's body and blood. and were treated and designated as the Savior's body and blood. If it were true that the Eucharist is only a symbol, then we would have to conclude that for basically 15 centuries, the church got it wrong. As a Christian who wants to live and adhere to a biblical and historic Christianity, I have to reject that idea.

Now, let me conclude by saying that I have a great deal of love and admiration for my Protestant brothers and sisters, including those who have a symbolic view of the Eucharist. And I genuinely believe that Catholic and Orthodox Christians can and do learn from them. Their devotion to Scripture, their emphasis on a personal relationship with Christ, all of that is important and powerful. The last thing I want is to come across like I'm speaking down to them. But here's a question for you. If the earliest Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, shouldn't you also believe in it? In the description below, I've laid out many scripture verses that uphold the Catholic

Church's teaching on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I've also included more quotes from the early Christians. Give it a look and let me know what you think in the comments section below.