JND Kelly and the Church Fathers
JND Kelly was an Protestant (Anglican) historian at Oxford - Principal of St. Edmund Hall, to be exact. He was a scholar of the Church Fathers, and wrote several books on Church History, including:
I've read the second book in that list, and I find his admissions absolutely shocking and refreshing. For a Protestant to admit so many points of Catholic teaching in the history of the Early Church is truly remarkable, not to mention useful for Catholics who want to defend their faith from history. This work of his is entirely thorough, and overflowing with references to original patristic documents - a must-read for any serious student of Church History.
Here are a few of my favorite passages from his book, Early Christian Doctrines.
********************
On Tradition
... by tradition the fathers usually mean doctrine which the Lord or His apostles committed to the Church, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents ... [t]he ancient meaning of the term is well illustrated by Athanasius' reference [Ad Serapion, 1:28] to 'the actual original tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord bestowed, the apostles proclaimed and the fathers safeguarded.' (p. 31)
It is much more plausible that [Christian teachers] were thinking generally of the common body of facts and doctrines, definite enough in outline thought with varying emphases, which found expression in the Church's day-to-day preaching, liturgical action and catechetical instruction, just as much as in its formal documents. (p. 34)
.. hints begin to appear of the theory that the Church's ministers, in virtue of their endowment with the Spirit, were the divinely authorized custodians of the apostolic teaching. Clement, for example, though not explicit on the point, seems to imply [Letter to the Corinthians, 42] that the hierarchy which succeeded the apostles inherited the gospel message which they had been commissioned to preach. The immense stress which Ignatius placed on loyalty to the episcopate finds its explanation in the fact that he regarded the bishop as the appointed guarantor of purity of doctrine. In 2 Clement [par. 17] strict obedience to the presbyters is inculcated on the ground that their task is to preach the faith, and that their instructions are identical with those of Christ Himself. (p. 35)
But where in practice was this apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? It was no longer possible to resort, as Papias and earlier writers had done, to personal reminiscences of the apostles. The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. Irenaeus believed that this was the case, stating [Against Heresies, Book V, pref.] that the Church preserved the tradition inherited from the apostles and passed it on to her children. It was, he thought, a living tradition which was, in principle, independent of written documents; and he pointed [ibid, Book III, cap. 4, 1 ff.] to barbarian tribes which 'received this faith without letters.' (p. 37)
Irenaeus makes two further points. First, the identity of oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. [Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 2, 2; Book III, cap. 3, 3; Book III, cap. 4, 1] Secondly, an additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message was committed to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. [ibid, Book III, cap. 24, 1] Indeed, the Church's bishops are on his view Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed 'an infallible charism of truth' (charisma veritatis certum) [ibid., Book IV, cap. 26, 2; Book IV, cap. 26, 5] (p. 37)
The difficulty was, of course, that heretics were liable to read a different meaning out of Scripture than the Church; but Irenaeus was satisfied [Against Heresies, Book II, cap. 27, 2] that, provided the Bible was taken as a whole, its teaching was self-evident ... Scripture must be interpreted in light of its fundamental ground-plan, viz. the original revelation itself. For that reason correct exegesis was the prerogative of the Church, where the apostolic tradition or doctrine which was the key to Scripture had been kept intact. [ibid., Book IV, cap. 26, 5; Book IV, cap. 32, 1; Book V, cap. 20, 2] (p. 38)
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced [Prescription Against Heretics, 9] that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and the discipline have been maintained, i.e. in the Church. [ibid., 19] The heretics, he complained [On Modesty, 8; Prescription, 12; Against Praxeas, 20], were able to make Scripture say what they liked because they disregarded the regula [fidei]. (p. 40)
[Tertullian] was certainly profoundly convinced [Prescription, 15, 19, and 37] of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture ... He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles' testimony in its original shape. (p. 41)
Learned and godly men, [Vicent of Lerins] states [Commonitory, 2], have often searched for a sure, universally applicable rule for distinguishing the truths of the Catholic faith from heretical falsehoods. What is necessary, he suggests, is a twofold bulwark, the authority of the divine law (i.e. the Bible) and the tradition of the Catholic Church. In itself, he concedes, Scripture 'is sufficient, and more than sufficient'; but because it is susceptible of such a variety of interpretations, we must have recourse to tradition. This 'norm of ecclesiastical and Catholic opinion,' as he designates it, is to be identified with 'what has been believed everywhere, always and by all' (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (p. 50)
On the Canon of Scripture
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two or twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism ... It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. (p. 53)
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement [3, 4; 27, 5] and Barnabas [6, 7], and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclesiasticus in the latter. [12, 1; 19, 9] Polycarp [10, 2] cites Tobit, and the Didache [4, 5] [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 26, 3; Book IV, cap. 38, 3; Book V, cap. 5, 2; Book V, cap. 35, 1] Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. (p. 54)
Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant [Preface to Sam. and Mal.] that anything not found in it was 'to be classed among the apocrypha,' not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded [Preface to Sal.] that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. (p. 55)
First, the criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity. Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be. Secondly, there were certain books which hovered for long on the fringe of the canon, but in the end failed to secure admission to it ... Among these were the Didache, Hermas' Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter. Thirdly, some of the books which were later included had to wait a considerable time before achieving universal recognition. For example, Hebrews was for long under suspicion in the West, and Revelation was usually excluded in the fourth and fifth centuries where the school of Antioch held sway. The Western church was absolutely silent about James until the latter half of the fourth century, and the four smaller Catholic epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude), absent from most early lists, continued for long to be treated as doubtful in certain circles. (p. 60)
On Baptism
As regards [Baptism's] significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins ... the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general. Clement appears to have had this in mind ... and this is clearly what lies behind the description of baptism as 'the seal' (sthragis) or 'the seal of the Son of God,' which the baptized must keep unsullied, in 2 Clement [7, 6; 8, 6] and Hermas. [Similitude Eighth, 2, 2; 6,3; Ninth, 16, 3] According to the latter, we descend into the water 'dead' and come out again 'alive' .. In 'Barnabas' [11, 11; 16, 7] it is the remission of sins which is emphasized; we enter the water weighed down and defiled by our transgressions, only to emerge 'bearing fruit in our hearts, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit.' (p. 194)
Justin has left a description [First Apology, 61] of baptism which has become famous ... the chief points he brings out are that it is a washing with water in the Triune name which has as its effects regeneration, illumination and remission of sins. Elsewhere [Dialogue with Trypho, 14, 1; 29, 1] he calls it 'the bath of repentance and knowledge of God,' the living water which alone can cleanse penitents ... a spiritual rite replacing circumcision, the unique doorway to the remission of sins prophesied by Isaiah. [ibid., 44, 4] (p. 194-5)
On the Eucharist
... the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1:10) ... was early seized [Didache 14, 3; Dialogue with Trypho 41, 2; Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5] upon by Christians as a prophecy of the eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies [14, 1] the term Thusia, or sacrifice, to the eucharist, and the idea is presupposed by Clement in the parallel he discovers [40-44] between the Church's ministers and the Old Testament priests and levites, as in his description [44, 4] of the function of the former as the offering of gifts (cf. tous ... prosenegkontas ta dora). Ignatius' reference [Epistle to the Philadelphians, 4] to 'one altar ... ', reveals that he too thought in sacrificial terms. Justin speaks [Dialogue, 117, 1] of 'all the sacrifices in this name which Jesus appointed to be performed, viz. in the eucharist of the bread and cup ...' Not only here but elsewhere [ibid., 41, 3] too, he identifies 'the bread of the eucharist, and the cup likewise of the eucharist,' with the sacrifice foretold by Malachi. For Irenaeus [Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5] the eucharist is 'the new oblation of the new covenant,' which the Church has received from the apostles and offers to God throughout the whole world. (p. 196)
If we inquire what the sacrifice was supposed to consist in, the Didache for its part provides no clear answer. Justin, however, makes it plain [Dialogue, 41, 3] that the bread and wine themselves were the 'pure offering' foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds [ibid., 117, 2] that 'prayers and thanksgivings' (eucharistiai) are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses [First Apology, 65, 3-5] the term 'thanksgiving' as technically equivalent to 'the eucharistized bread and wine.' The bread and wine, moreover, are offered 'for a memorial (eis anamnesin) of the passion,' a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord's body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. (p. 196-7)
Ignatius roundly declares [Epistle to the Smyrneans, 6, 2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised.' The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood. [Epistle to the Romans, 7, 3] Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes [Smyrneans, 6 ff.] it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. (p. 197)
Justin actually refers to the change. 'We do not receive these,' he writes [First Apology, 66, 2], 'as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the word of prayer from Him ... is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.' So Irenaeus teaches [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5; Book IV, cap. 18, 4; Book V, cap. 2, 3] that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood ... Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a change, for he remarks [Heresies, Book IV, cap. 18, 5; cf. Book V, cap. 2, 3]: 'Just as the bread, which comes from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but eucharist, being composed of two elements, a terrestrial one and a celestial, so our bodies are no longer commonplace when they receive the eucharist, since they have the hope of resurrection to eternity.' (p. 198)
Hippolytus speaks [Frag. arab. in Gen. 38, 19] of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes [On Prayer, 19; On Idolatry, 7] the bread as 'the Lord's body' ... Cyprian's attitude is similar ... he expatiates [The Lapsed, 25 ff.] on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the real presence literally. (p. 211-2)
Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [Against Marcion, 3, 19; 4, 40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [ibid., 1, 14] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.' Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to the ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian's vocabulary, [ibid., 4, 22; On Monogamy, 10] retained its original significance of 'to make present' ... he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine. (p. 212)
The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their sacrifice. The writers and liturgies of the period are unanimous in recognizing it as such. Clement [of Alexandria] applies [Stromata, Book I, 19, 96; Book IV, 25, 161] the term 'sacrifice' (prosthora) to it, citing Melchizedek's offering as its type. Tertullian defines [On the Veiling of Virgins , 9] the priestly function as one of 'offering' (offerre); the 'offering of the sacrifice' [On the Apparel of Women, 2, 11] is as much a Christian occasion to him as the preaching of the Word. Though the first to mention it [The Chaplet, 3; On Monogamy, 10; Concerning the Exhortation to Chastity, 11), he treats the offering of the eucharist for the dead (oblationes pro defunctis) as one of the established customs which tradition has hallowed. (p. 214)
- The Oxford Dictionary of Popes
- Early Christian Doctrines
- Early Christian Creeds
- Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom
- Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies
I've read the second book in that list, and I find his admissions absolutely shocking and refreshing. For a Protestant to admit so many points of Catholic teaching in the history of the Early Church is truly remarkable, not to mention useful for Catholics who want to defend their faith from history. This work of his is entirely thorough, and overflowing with references to original patristic documents - a must-read for any serious student of Church History.
Here are a few of my favorite passages from his book, Early Christian Doctrines.
********************
On Tradition
... by tradition the fathers usually mean doctrine which the Lord or His apostles committed to the Church, irrespective of whether it was handed down orally or in documents ... [t]he ancient meaning of the term is well illustrated by Athanasius' reference [Ad Serapion, 1:28] to 'the actual original tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord bestowed, the apostles proclaimed and the fathers safeguarded.' (p. 31)
It is much more plausible that [Christian teachers] were thinking generally of the common body of facts and doctrines, definite enough in outline thought with varying emphases, which found expression in the Church's day-to-day preaching, liturgical action and catechetical instruction, just as much as in its formal documents. (p. 34)
.. hints begin to appear of the theory that the Church's ministers, in virtue of their endowment with the Spirit, were the divinely authorized custodians of the apostolic teaching. Clement, for example, though not explicit on the point, seems to imply [Letter to the Corinthians, 42] that the hierarchy which succeeded the apostles inherited the gospel message which they had been commissioned to preach. The immense stress which Ignatius placed on loyalty to the episcopate finds its explanation in the fact that he regarded the bishop as the appointed guarantor of purity of doctrine. In 2 Clement [par. 17] strict obedience to the presbyters is inculcated on the ground that their task is to preach the faith, and that their instructions are identical with those of Christ Himself. (p. 35)
But where in practice was this apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? It was no longer possible to resort, as Papias and earlier writers had done, to personal reminiscences of the apostles. The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. Irenaeus believed that this was the case, stating [Against Heresies, Book V, pref.] that the Church preserved the tradition inherited from the apostles and passed it on to her children. It was, he thought, a living tradition which was, in principle, independent of written documents; and he pointed [ibid, Book III, cap. 4, 1 ff.] to barbarian tribes which 'received this faith without letters.' (p. 37)
Irenaeus makes two further points. First, the identity of oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. [Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 2, 2; Book III, cap. 3, 3; Book III, cap. 4, 1] Secondly, an additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message was committed to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. [ibid, Book III, cap. 24, 1] Indeed, the Church's bishops are on his view Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed 'an infallible charism of truth' (charisma veritatis certum) [ibid., Book IV, cap. 26, 2; Book IV, cap. 26, 5] (p. 37)
The difficulty was, of course, that heretics were liable to read a different meaning out of Scripture than the Church; but Irenaeus was satisfied [Against Heresies, Book II, cap. 27, 2] that, provided the Bible was taken as a whole, its teaching was self-evident ... Scripture must be interpreted in light of its fundamental ground-plan, viz. the original revelation itself. For that reason correct exegesis was the prerogative of the Church, where the apostolic tradition or doctrine which was the key to Scripture had been kept intact. [ibid., Book IV, cap. 26, 5; Book IV, cap. 32, 1; Book V, cap. 20, 2] (p. 38)
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced [Prescription Against Heretics, 9] that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and the discipline have been maintained, i.e. in the Church. [ibid., 19] The heretics, he complained [On Modesty, 8; Prescription, 12; Against Praxeas, 20], were able to make Scripture say what they liked because they disregarded the regula [fidei]. (p. 40)
[Tertullian] was certainly profoundly convinced [Prescription, 15, 19, and 37] of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture ... He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles' testimony in its original shape. (p. 41)
Learned and godly men, [Vicent of Lerins] states [Commonitory, 2], have often searched for a sure, universally applicable rule for distinguishing the truths of the Catholic faith from heretical falsehoods. What is necessary, he suggests, is a twofold bulwark, the authority of the divine law (i.e. the Bible) and the tradition of the Catholic Church. In itself, he concedes, Scripture 'is sufficient, and more than sufficient'; but because it is susceptible of such a variety of interpretations, we must have recourse to tradition. This 'norm of ecclesiastical and Catholic opinion,' as he designates it, is to be identified with 'what has been believed everywhere, always and by all' (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (p. 50)
On the Canon of Scripture
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two or twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism ... It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. (p. 53)
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement [3, 4; 27, 5] and Barnabas [6, 7], and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclesiasticus in the latter. [12, 1; 19, 9] Polycarp [10, 2] cites Tobit, and the Didache [4, 5] [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 26, 3; Book IV, cap. 38, 3; Book V, cap. 5, 2; Book V, cap. 35, 1] Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. (p. 54)
Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant [Preface to Sam. and Mal.] that anything not found in it was 'to be classed among the apocrypha,' not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded [Preface to Sal.] that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. (p. 55)
First, the criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity. Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be. Secondly, there were certain books which hovered for long on the fringe of the canon, but in the end failed to secure admission to it ... Among these were the Didache, Hermas' Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter. Thirdly, some of the books which were later included had to wait a considerable time before achieving universal recognition. For example, Hebrews was for long under suspicion in the West, and Revelation was usually excluded in the fourth and fifth centuries where the school of Antioch held sway. The Western church was absolutely silent about James until the latter half of the fourth century, and the four smaller Catholic epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude), absent from most early lists, continued for long to be treated as doubtful in certain circles. (p. 60)
On Baptism
As regards [Baptism's] significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins ... the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general. Clement appears to have had this in mind ... and this is clearly what lies behind the description of baptism as 'the seal' (sthragis) or 'the seal of the Son of God,' which the baptized must keep unsullied, in 2 Clement [7, 6; 8, 6] and Hermas. [Similitude Eighth, 2, 2; 6,3; Ninth, 16, 3] According to the latter, we descend into the water 'dead' and come out again 'alive' .. In 'Barnabas' [11, 11; 16, 7] it is the remission of sins which is emphasized; we enter the water weighed down and defiled by our transgressions, only to emerge 'bearing fruit in our hearts, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit.' (p. 194)
Justin has left a description [First Apology, 61] of baptism which has become famous ... the chief points he brings out are that it is a washing with water in the Triune name which has as its effects regeneration, illumination and remission of sins. Elsewhere [Dialogue with Trypho, 14, 1; 29, 1] he calls it 'the bath of repentance and knowledge of God,' the living water which alone can cleanse penitents ... a spiritual rite replacing circumcision, the unique doorway to the remission of sins prophesied by Isaiah. [ibid., 44, 4] (p. 194-5)
On the Eucharist
... the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1:10) ... was early seized [Didache 14, 3; Dialogue with Trypho 41, 2; Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5] upon by Christians as a prophecy of the eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies [14, 1] the term Thusia, or sacrifice, to the eucharist, and the idea is presupposed by Clement in the parallel he discovers [40-44] between the Church's ministers and the Old Testament priests and levites, as in his description [44, 4] of the function of the former as the offering of gifts (cf. tous ... prosenegkontas ta dora). Ignatius' reference [Epistle to the Philadelphians, 4] to 'one altar ... ', reveals that he too thought in sacrificial terms. Justin speaks [Dialogue, 117, 1] of 'all the sacrifices in this name which Jesus appointed to be performed, viz. in the eucharist of the bread and cup ...' Not only here but elsewhere [ibid., 41, 3] too, he identifies 'the bread of the eucharist, and the cup likewise of the eucharist,' with the sacrifice foretold by Malachi. For Irenaeus [Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5] the eucharist is 'the new oblation of the new covenant,' which the Church has received from the apostles and offers to God throughout the whole world. (p. 196)
If we inquire what the sacrifice was supposed to consist in, the Didache for its part provides no clear answer. Justin, however, makes it plain [Dialogue, 41, 3] that the bread and wine themselves were the 'pure offering' foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds [ibid., 117, 2] that 'prayers and thanksgivings' (eucharistiai) are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses [First Apology, 65, 3-5] the term 'thanksgiving' as technically equivalent to 'the eucharistized bread and wine.' The bread and wine, moreover, are offered 'for a memorial (eis anamnesin) of the passion,' a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord's body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. (p. 196-7)
Ignatius roundly declares [Epistle to the Smyrneans, 6, 2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised.' The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood. [Epistle to the Romans, 7, 3] Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes [Smyrneans, 6 ff.] it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. (p. 197)
Justin actually refers to the change. 'We do not receive these,' he writes [First Apology, 66, 2], 'as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the word of prayer from Him ... is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.' So Irenaeus teaches [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5; Book IV, cap. 18, 4; Book V, cap. 2, 3] that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood ... Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a change, for he remarks [Heresies, Book IV, cap. 18, 5; cf. Book V, cap. 2, 3]: 'Just as the bread, which comes from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but eucharist, being composed of two elements, a terrestrial one and a celestial, so our bodies are no longer commonplace when they receive the eucharist, since they have the hope of resurrection to eternity.' (p. 198)
Hippolytus speaks [Frag. arab. in Gen. 38, 19] of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes [On Prayer, 19; On Idolatry, 7] the bread as 'the Lord's body' ... Cyprian's attitude is similar ... he expatiates [The Lapsed, 25 ff.] on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the real presence literally. (p. 211-2)
Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [Against Marcion, 3, 19; 4, 40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [ibid., 1, 14] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.' Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to the ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian's vocabulary, [ibid., 4, 22; On Monogamy, 10] retained its original significance of 'to make present' ... he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine. (p. 212)
The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their sacrifice. The writers and liturgies of the period are unanimous in recognizing it as such. Clement [of Alexandria] applies [Stromata, Book I, 19, 96; Book IV, 25, 161] the term 'sacrifice' (prosthora) to it, citing Melchizedek's offering as its type. Tertullian defines [On the Veiling of Virgins , 9] the priestly function as one of 'offering' (offerre); the 'offering of the sacrifice' [On the Apparel of Women, 2, 11] is as much a Christian occasion to him as the preaching of the Word. Though the first to mention it [The Chaplet, 3; On Monogamy, 10; Concerning the Exhortation to Chastity, 11), he treats the offering of the eucharist for the dead (oblationes pro defunctis) as one of the established customs which tradition has hallowed. (p. 214)
<< Home