Folks online, who wish to rewrite church history to turn church fathers into symbol only affirming and real presence denying teachers, love to use articles like this that purport to set the record straight:
https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
The writing boldly claimed at the start: “ This article will examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma.”
Then it added, “Within these writings are clear references to the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist being symbolical, and the words, ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood’ spoken by Jesus in the bread of life discourse as being metaphorical.”
The rebuttal to what it claimed on Ignatius is dealt with here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers.html
In regards to what was claimed on Justin can be found here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_22.html
This response here will be in regards to the article’s claim on late-second century apologist and bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus.
The article quoted Irenaeus’ Against Heresies Book IV Chapter 18 as saying:
“Then, again, how can they [the Gnostics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the eucharist, and the eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
But then it offered this argument on it: “Again, the context is the resurrection of the believer. Irenaeus is speaking of Christians when he said, ‘the fleshed nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood..’ That is, those who believe on He who was crucified for their sins are nourished with the body and blood of the Lord. Their bodies will not remain in corruption because they will be resurrected. For we offer to Him His own, that is of His own creation. But offerings in the flesh are only pleasing to God when the flesh is united with the Spirit. The flesh united with the gift of the Holy Spirit offers to God the praises of thanksgiving. Flesh void of the gift of the Holy Spirit cannot offer anything to God.”
Note what the article try to do with what Irenaeus said here. It tries to have it both ways that the context isn’t Eucharistic real presence but (future) resurrection of Christians who are nourished with the body and blood of Christ, by believing in Him, not through means of partaking of bread and wine.
But the article turns around and said that it is indeed reference to the Eucharist:
“Irenaeus transfers this reality to the bread of the Eucharist by claiming that the bread, which is of God’s creation, receives a Spiritual aspect upon receiving the invocation. The bread, he states, is ‘no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.’ Earthly, because it is bread which is of the creation, and heavenly, because it is blessed and received by those who themselves are both earthly (in the flesh) and heavenly (born of the Spirit).”
What the article won’t acknowledge is what Irenaeus was saying which was feeding on the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is the source by which and hope for our bodies will one day be resurrected.
Instead it tries to claim the heavenly reality of the Eucharist as stated by Irenaeus came not from the Eucharist but from us being “ heavenly (born of the Spirit.” What a way to turn what Irenaeus said on its head just to avoid the fact that Irenaeus said the bread that is now the Eucharist consists of earthly and heavenly realities, and that Irenaeus’ opinion that our bodies are nourished with the body and blood of Christ, to partake of life (or resurrection) was in accordance with the Eucharist.
It’s the same thing the article did with quotes by Ignatius: obfuscate his words to have him deny what he actually said which was the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ and is the bread broken that is our medicine of immortality for our hope of our resurrection.
Then the article added this: “Irenaeus said the bread was no longer common bread, thus maintaining its status as bread; and the Catholic bishops say it is no longer bread at all. The earthly aspect of the bread from the Irenaeus quote is acknowledgment that the bread is of the creation. The spiritual is attached to the Eucharist itself, which is the celebration of the passion of the Lord and the unity of the body of Christ.”
Irenaeus saying bread is no longer common bread in no way, shape or form in support of the article’s attempt to turn the church father into a symbol only view advocate of the Eucharist. What the article wanted him to say was not just that bread remained bread (though Lutherans affirm both real presence AND bread/wine remains bread/wine, what Irenaeus said can be read either bread remains or not remains bread) but that Christ’s flesh was not present hence the need to turn the heavenly reality of the bread stated by Irenaeus into his view of the Eucharist is just symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ (which is simply a purely revisionist reading of Irenaeus).
Consider further what Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 2, which the article conveniently ignores and omits altogether (not just the quote below but the whole chapter):
“And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.”
Irenaeus specifically said the cup is Christ’s own blood and the bread is Christ’s own body to “give increase to our bodies.”
Furthermore in Book V, Chapter 2, the church father wrote:
“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him.”
Again, we see hope of life eternal come from our bodies being nourished by the body and blood of Christ via the Eucharist made by the bread receiving the word of God (or the maxim “word makes sacrament”).
To illustrate this theme further that our hope of future resurrection comes from partaking of the body and blood of Christ, Irenaeus wrote:
“And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption.”
Note from this quote that Irenaeus specifically said the bread and wine become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ, when Word is added to the elements (Word makes sacrament):
“And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ.”
But that’s not all the omissions of what Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies. Note this quote in Book IV, Chapter 33, especially the last sentence:
“2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. Or how can he be good who draws away men that do not belong to him from him who made them, and calls them into his own kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood?”
Again, Irenaeus point blank affirmed the Eucharistic bread and wine to be Christ’s body and blood..
These are serious omissions from the article in regards to what Irenaeus said on the Eucharist so that it can say: “To Irenaeus the idea of real presence in the Eucharist as believed by Catholics today would have been ridiculous.”
No, what’s ridiculous is 1) the spins of what Irenaeus (and other fathers) said where quoted saying the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and 2) the serious omissions of words and quotes (in Irenaeus’ case, even a whole chapter where he repeatedly said the Eucharist is or even becomes the body and blood of Christ) that refute the claims on what they taught.
(While the article purports to refute Rome’s view, it is doing so by passing off falsely the fathers as holding to symbolic only view of the Eucharist and having them all denied any form of real presence.)
After spinning a quote from Against Heresies but ignoring and omitting others from it, the article tried to claim Irenaeus was arguing against the idea of real presence by quoting him in Fragment 13:
“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?’”
The article then claimed:
“The slaves had heard from their masters that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and so confessed it to be. But Irenaeus clarifies for us that the slaves confessed in ignorance by saying they imagined it was actually flesh and blood. Irenaeus’ point is made even clearer in Blandina’s reply to the Greeks’ attempt to make he and Sanctus confess the same. The slaves themselves would not even eat the meat that was permitted them to eat much less the literal flesh of Christ. To Irenaeus the idea of real presence in the Eucharist as believed by Catholics today would have been ridiculous.”
The response to that here is as Irenaeus put it, what was taught was still, “the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ.” What was misunderstood by those who were taught in this instance was seeing in cannibalistic terms, which real presence does not mean (in other words, a strawman argument). Christians then and now, who affirm real presence, reject cannibalism. Misunderstanding of a view doesn’t negate it.
What Irenaeus said there about misunderstanding it (as to mean we eat carnally a human body) doesn’t change the fact he taught the “divine communion was the body and blood of Christ” in Fragment 13 and in Against Heresies Book IV, Chapters 18 and 33 and especially Book V, Chapter 2).
Here we stand.
👍 good job,Sir Thuyen. God be with you.
ReplyDelete