Greetings, Homer (and any others still following this thread)—
So, I wanted to take a closer look here at the texts from some of the ante-Nicene Fathers that you left last time. First, I will take a look at Clement, then Irenaeus, and, finally, Tertullian. As your previous post contained solid substance, what I write is lengthy in order to adequately respond to your previous good questions and challenging thoughts (for which I, once again, thank you!) I hope you have the time to read, good brother!
------------------------------------------------------------
1.) Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria wrote:
“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him.
Okay, so, in this part of Clement’s work, his whole focus is on “figuring out” what is meant by Paul in 1 Cor. 3:2 when he wrote, “I have fed you with milk (as children in Christ), not with meat; for you were not able, neither yet are you now able.” Without going into the whole dialectic that Clement engages in about this, and his thoughts on what this verse means, it suffices to say that Clement looks at other parts of Scripture in which we, as Christians, are “fed” on the Word (Christ), and how this “feeding” is described. So, Clement here is noting that there are other parts of Scripture in which it is stated that Christians “feed” on Christ. And, so, here, he takes note that, in the Scriptures, the
figures of meat, flesh, food, bread, blood, and milk are, in various parts of Scripture, used as “figures”; looking at the whole context of the Chapter, it appears that this is the precise meaning of the word “figuratively” as it is used in this sentence. That is, “figuratively” here means that the Word is described under these figures. And, well, that says nothing with regard to Clement’s teaching on the Eucharist, i.e., whether or not he sees the Eucharist as being ONLY a symbol of Christ’s Body and Blood, or something more. Neither is he contradicting the doctrine of transubstantiation here (for, that doctrine acknowledges that Christ, the Word, is described, in different ways, under the figures of meat, flesh, food, etc.) Hope that makes sense.
Clement also wrote:
Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?”
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you gave this quote because you were, perhaps, thinking that in Clement referencing “wine” here, he is referencing the wine used in the Eucharist—and, thus, that He is saying that the Lord’s Blood is figuratively represented by the wine of the Eucharist. Well, besides the fact that, even if this were the case, that would be no contradiction to the doctrine of transubstantiation (for, we Catholics would readily agree that the Blood of the Lord is symbolized, or figuratively represented, by the wine used in the Eucharist, in addition to actually being contained in the wine, that is, in what appears to be wine, after consecration), but, more to the point: Clement is not here talking about the wine of the Eucharist. For, if we are to continue this particular quote, we see that the next sentence a quote from Gen. 49:11, namely, “Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. (Gen. 49:11) Thus, the “wine” Clement is referencing HERE, in this sentence, is not the wine used in the Eucharist, but the wine referenced in Gen. 49:11 (this shows how important it is to get the full context of the statement; not sure if you were quoting this line from the actual document of Clement—if so, read further on, and you’ll see this ref to Gen. 49:11—or if you were quoting it from a book of excerpts from the Fathers, in which case, that important line was missing showing he’s not referencing the Eucharist at all in this particular line).
Clement wrote:
And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?...Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise…”
Okay, so, here’s what I think is going on here (although, it would be nice to check the original language of Clement on this one, as there are some particular words whose precise meaning are potentially important and could potentially have been lost in the English translation). But, anyways, here it goes…The key words which lead to the idea that Clement is denying any notion consistent with transubstantiation are, of course, “symbols” (as in, “The Lord…brought this out by symbols”) and “metaphor” (as in, “describing distinctly by metaphor drinkable properties of faith…”)
So, to address these objections, I respond with the following. With respect to the use of the word, “Symbols”, I think he used this word here to refer to the actual, concrete, tangible symbols (of bread and wine) used in the Eucharist in contrast to the merely figurative speech seen elsewhere in Scripture (such as the case when Christians are said to be fed with “milk” when having the Gospel preached to them); in other words, I think he used “symbols” here to say, basically, “I am now referring to the actual Sacrament of the Eucharist”. And, again, as stated above, no contradiction to the doctrine of transubstantiation with referring to the “symbols” of the Eucharist (for, the doctrine holds that there is both symbolism of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, as well as the ACTUAL Body and Blood contained in the “symbols”; in fact, in Catholic thought, sometimes the Sacrament of the Eucharist is simply referred to as “the Symbols”, Symbols which symbolize AND contain Christ’s Body and Blood).
But, what about his use of the word “metaphor” here? Well, just as one can say that, in the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of the Lord is both symbolized AND actually contained (in a Sacramental manner), so, too, one can—and must-- say that Our Lord, in commanding us to eat His Body and drink His Blood, He is commanding us to BOTH eat His Blood and drink His Blood (in a
Sacramental manner, in the Eucharist) as well as to consume Him SPIRITUALLY by Faith (even as we receive Sacramentally in the Eucharist). In fact, Catholics today will speak of receiving Our Lord in Communion (in the Eucharist) in two ways: 1.) spiritually, only (the taking of Christ into our hearts, by Faith, but without receiving the Sacrament); 2.) spiritually AND Sacramentally (the taking of Christ into our hearts, by Faith, AND receiving the Sacrament). The taking of Christ into our hearts, spiritually (which is necessary for a proper receiving of Him in the Sacrament), can be said to be, metaphorically speaking, a “drinking” or “eating” of Christ by Faith (as Christ says, early on in the “Bread of Life” discourse, “”I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall not thirst.”)
So, in other words, according to the Catholic view, in receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist, we believe that there is an ACTUAL receiving/consuming of His Body and Blood
in a Sacramental manner, AS WELL AS a metaphorical “consuming” of Him by Faith (and charity). The Catholic view is a “both-and”: the Sacrament of the Eucharist is BOTH a Symbol of Christ’s Body and Blood, AND the actual Body and Blood of Christ; consuming Christ in the Eucharist is BOTH a consuming of His Body and Blood in a Sacramental manner, AND a metaphorical consuming of Him by Faith. What the Catholic view rejects is not the claim that there is symbolism and metaphor used here, but the claim that there is ONLY symbolism and metaphor used here. And, why would Clement, in this passage, make note of referring to the metaphorical consumption of Christ in the Eucharist (and make no reference, HERE, to the actual Sacramental consuming of the Body and Blood)? Because, his whole goal in this part of his work was to figure out and analyze the different metaphors used in Scripture and the metaphorical ways in which we consume Christ; the context makes it clear why Clement would use THIS kind of language here.
All that said, elsewhere, Clement does, I believe, make it clear that, in addition to realizing the symbolic and metaphorical aspects of the Eucharist, he also believes the Eucharist does contain the actual Body and Blood of Christ. For, again, further on in “The Instructor”, he writes,
“Therefore [the Church] had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. John 6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”
He is clearly talking about the Holy Eucharist here. He says that the Lord offers His flesh and blood to the Christian as food. Is he speaking MERELY metaphorically here? Is he referring to the Christian receiving the Lord by faith, as he was earlier? I don’t think so; for, in response to this act of the Christian receiving the Lord’s Body, he, out of nowhere, gets very excited and exclaims, “O amazing mystery!” It would seem unfitting for him to, all of a sudden, show such excitement if he was, as before, simply referring to the Christian receiving our Lord under MERE symbols, or simply “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” in a metaphorical manner, i.e., by faith and charity. Rather, this sudden excitement strongly indicates—and, I think, certainly shows—that Clement is showing great admiration over the fact that the Christian not only consumes Our Lord by faith, but also ACTUALLY consumes Our Lord in the Sacrament (as one ancient Catholic hymn says, “O admirable thing! The the poor, humble slave [i.e., the Christian] consumes the Master!”, a hymn that almost verbatim quotes Clement). Further, Clement, in giving this exultation, parallels His excitement at the INCARNATION just a few sentences earlier—again, indicating that, His latter excitement is over the fact the INCARNATE word IN THE FLESH (and BLOOD) continues to be given to us in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Lastly, I think the reference to "receiving Him, IF WE CAN" is an allusion to the Apostle Paul's warning about receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily (see 1 Cor. 11:23-29), and "hiding Him within" refers to, I think, the "hiding" of Christ within our own bodies after consuming,
in a Sacramental manner, the Body of Christ, truly Present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (as Clement here, again, seems to be teaching).
Elsewhere, in Book II of “The Instructor”, Clement writes the following:
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Clement here is speaking of the Eucharist. Note here that Clement refers to the Blood of Christ’s FLESH, and the DRINKING of this Blood, which drinking makes us partakers of the Lord’s immortality (fitting perfectly with Our Lord’s teaching in John 6, especially, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him…He who eats me will live because of me.” (John 6:54-57)
Finally, elsewhere he writes that the Eucharist (and he uses the word, “Eucharist”) is a “renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” In such a teaching, Clement, again, shows that he had a very Catholic idea of the Eucharist (especially in declaring the Eucharist sanctifies those who partake of it by faith).
Supporting evidence to show that all this is the proper interpretation of Clement can be seen by looking at the teachings of other prominent Fathers, including those whom Clement taught (eg., Origen). Looking at their writings shows that they held to the belief that the Lord’s Body and Blood is truly present in the Holy Eucharist (eg., Origen, Clement’s disciple, taught: “We also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.” (Against Celsus 8:33) “You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Homilies on Joshua 2:1) “ 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….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY?” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3))
So, in summarizing Clement, while it is clear that Clement, like many other Fathers of the Church, recognizes the symbolic nature of the Eucharist, and the fact that the Christian, in receiving the Eucharist, consumes/drinks Christ, by faith, in a metaphorical manner, he, like these other Fathers, also teaches that, in the Eucharist, the Lord’s Body and Blood is TRULY contained AND consumed,
in a Sacramental manner, by the Christian. In teaching all of this, Clement appears to be teaching exactly what the Catholic Church, in her doctrine of transubstantiation, still teaches today, and has always taught, concerning the Eucharist.
------------------------------------------------------------
2.) Irenaeus
Irenaeus wrote:
"He (the heretic) acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life?" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)
Sticking to simply the words in this quote from Irenaeus (as opposed to your commentary on this quote, Homer, which included, in my opinion, a number of unsubstantiated claims and “leaps”), we see in
this quote alone that Irenaeus is actually AFFIRMING that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. For, notice that Irenaeus says that the heretic acknowledges that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ (by saying that the Gnostic “acknowledges” this, we can rightly assume that Irenaeus, too, believes this—for if I say that another person “acknowledges” something to be so, I am saying that I, too, KNOW this to be true). Further, Irenaeus HIMSELF directly
affirms here that “the eucharist becomes the Body of Christ”. So, this quote, quite the contrary to indicating that Irenaeus denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it actually shows—and, I would say, CLEARLY shows-- that Irenaeus is AFFIRMING the Real Presence of Christ (the Real and Sacramental Presence of His Body and Blood) in the Eucharist.
It is also worth noting here that this quote shows us that EVEN the heretics of Irenaeus’ day believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist! This shows just how widespread and engrained was the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Early Church that EVEN THE HERETICS believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not even THEY would go so far as to deny that Christ was truly Present, Body and Blood, in the Eucharist. That, actually, is another STRONG piece of evidence showing just how widespread and deep is the Church’s belief in the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Besides, we also have other quotes from Irenaeus that show that he believed that the Eucharist is/contains, in a Sacramental manner, Christ’s Body and Blood. To give a couple examples:
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.” (Against Heresies 5:2:2)
“When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… “ (Against Heresies 5:2:3)
------------------------------------------------------------
3.) Tertullian
Tertullian wrote:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
Again, context is so important; as you pointed out, and as is clear from the text itself, Tertullian is writing here against Marcion, who held that Christ’s Body was just a phantom body, not a real body. So, again, Tertullian here simply states that the Eucharistic bread is a figure—or a symbol—of Christ’s body; as stated above, this actually is no contradiction to Catholic teaching (for, again, Catholic teaching DOES hold that the Eucharistic bread is both a symbol of Christ’s Body AND it also contains Christ’s Body itself). The reason why Tertullian takes pains here to point out that the Eucharstic bread is a “figure” of Christ’s Body is because the appearance of bread can be seen; the Eucharistic bread, as a symbol, is observable (whereas, in the Eucharist, the substance of the Body of Christ itself is, so to speak, “hidden” under the appearances of bread). So, because Tertullian is trying to show Marcion is wrong about Christ’s Body being a phantom, he NEEDS to reference the SYMOBLIC/FIGURATIVE nature of the Eucharist, for THAT is what is
observable/tangible to our senses (whereas, in the Eucharist, the Body of Christ itself is, again, “hidden” under the appearance of the Eucharistic bread), and, if we have some sensible symbol to represent Christ’s Body, as we do in the Eucharist, then that proves, against Marcion, that Christ had a real Body. And, that is why Tertullian emphasized the symbolic nature of the Eucharist; which, today, the Catholic Church readily affirms.
But, Tertullian, in this quote, is NOT denying that the Eucharist actually contains the Body and Blood of Christ. In fact, elsewhere, he affirms this. In fact, in that very same text, just a few sentences later, he will write, “[Christ] washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now
consecrate His BLOOD in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” Tertullian states that Christ “consecrated” His own Blood in wine, i.e., turned the wine into His own Blood (thus bringing to fulfillment the Old Testament types in which wine MERELY symbolized His blood).
Even more clearly, Tertullian affirms the Real Presence of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist (as well as the Sacrificial nature of the Mass), as he would write elsewhere, “In regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED…” (Prayer 19:1) And, “The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God.” (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
-------------------------------
Besides this look at these ante-Nicene Fathers, and the responses I have presented here to claims that they denied the belief that Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ, we have, as I have stated earlier in this thread, very early teachings from Ignatius of Antioch as well as Justin Martyr showing clear evidence in the early Church’s belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Again, Ignatius, that heroic martyr and leader of the 1st/2nd century Church and friend and disciple of John the Evangelist (thus, one who is in good position to give us a true interpretation of John 6), wrote, among other things, “I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD…” (Letter to the Romans 7:3), and “Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD…” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1), and “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST…” (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1). And, Justin Martyr/Philosopher taught, “The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS.” (First Apology, 66)
In conclusion, as the early Fathers of the Church recognized, in the Eucharist, both a symbol of Christ’s Body and Blood, AND Christ’s Body and Blood ITSELF, present in Sacramental form, so, too, does the Catholic Church today, in her doctrine of transubstantiation, as she always has taught (and this should not be at all surprising, for the Church of the Fathers and the Catholic Church of today are one and the same Church-- as indeed it is the same Church as that which was founded by Christ upon Peter (the first Pope) and the Apostles, against which Church the gates of Hell shall never prevail. Amen!)
In Christ, the Bread of Life (and Head and Founder of the Catholic Church),
BrotherAlan