Holy Communion – The Benefits and Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – PART 1: The Historical Argument

Due to the length – this article has been broken up into 2 parts. For the full PDF you can download it here: Holy Communion-The Benefits and Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

            The Lord’s Supper or Eucharist is one of the Sacraments which Jesus instituted for his Church to follow, and was meant to be a source of much blessing. However, there has been quite a bit of controversy over many different parts of this Sacrament between various denominations. It has been a major focal point of great schisms in the Church, most notably that between Protestants and Catholics—which I will be focusing on. From the beginning, “the majority has agreed that Jesus is really present; the point of contention surrounds the mode of that presence” and what are the benefits conveyed.[1] The question of whether or not the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice will not be explored explicitly here, as I am focusing primarily on the question of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, I do think some clarity may be gained implicitly through this study.

            I will explore this question of ‘presence’ by firstly looking at the historical writings, doctrine and practice of the early church, then considering how an understanding of the Hebrew sacramental thought and culture of the time can help us compare different viewpoints. Secondly, I will then look at some of the key passages of scripture, responding to rebuttals and their significance to our biblical understanding of the Eucharist. I will conclude by assessing the mode of Christ’s presence and the benefits conveyed in the Sacrament. Many Evangelicals may not be very familiar with the material in this study, however, for a majority of the early church this was an important issue and it would benefit us greatly to take a closer look.


Roman Catholic Transubstantiation

            The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, after Pope Pius’ declaration, holds that the substance of the bread and wine is supernaturally transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the real, actual “substance of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ” together with the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.[2] However, there is no discernible difference before the consecration of the elements and after.[3] Rome contends that despite the change in essential nature or “substance”, the “accidents” of the bread and the wine—such as appearance and taste—remain unchanged. The Catechism appeals to Thomas Aquinas, who drew on Aristotelian Greek philosophy, affirming that this is something that “cannot be apprehended by the senses” but “only by faith, which relies on divine authority.”[4] The Catechisms claim that both Scripture and Tradition confirm transubstantiation and cites early church fathers such as Chrysostom and Ambrose.[5] It was established as the authoritative position of the Catholic Church in 1215 CE at the Fourth Lateran Council.[6]

            The Council of Trent in 1551 CE established Canons 1, 2 and 8 which clearly teach that Protestants, by denial of Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation are anathema—cut off or accursed.[7] In 1562 CE, the Council in its twenty-second session stated that the Mass is truly propitiatory for the sins of the living, and the dead who are not yet fully purified. It also again reiterated the anathema against those who did not hold to transubstantiation.[8] Protestants understandably were severely offended by these assertions and many years of sometimes violent reaction and quarrel ensued between them and Rome. The Westminster confession of faith rejects the doctrine of transubstantiation, calling it “repugnant not to scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason” and asserts that it is only a commemoration.[9] Interestingly, Catholic writer Martin Scott says that, “If the Mass is not the most sacred act of worship on earth it is the most idolatrous and abominable. For the Mass claims to bring down on our altars the Son of God, and to offer Him in sacrifice to the Godhead.”[10] Over the course of history, many men would be punished, exiled or killed over this issue. Clearly, to many this is no small issue—so what is the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist then? I will first look at the historical argument.


Historical Analysis

            The Catholic dogma of transubstantiation as it currently stands is late in its origin. Martin Luther even stated that, “the Church had gotten along fine for about twelve hundred years without it.”[11] The doctrine of the Eucharistic presence developed gradually and in the early patristic period there was remarkably little controversy on the subject due to widespread persecution over the Roman Empire. In the early writings, even where the elements are spoken of as symbols, there is no denial of the reality of the presence of Christ in the gift. However, the concept of a “symbol” was that which conveys and is what it represents, unlike more modern understandings of the word.[12] It wasn’t until the fourth century that language about the elements really began to change, and the use of the elements as “symbols” was either denied or dropped. However, there is hardly any attempt at a precise formulation of how the material elements relate to the body and blood of Christ in the early period and controversies regarding the nature of the ‘presence’ did not come up until the earlier Middle Ages.[13] Instead, the various formulations of the ante-Nicene period are complimentary ways of expressing the already presupposed real Eucharistic presence.[14]

            Roman Catholic apologists often cite early church fathers as strong support of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Looking at the vast amount of early writings is quite a daunting task, and each needs to be read in its context to fully appreciate what was truly meant and what information we can credibly glean from it as pertinent to this discussion. It would be impossible in the space here to give a full treatment, but I will look at a few of the most commonly used sources next.


Early Writings

            Looking at the earliest writers, Ignatius (c. 35-107CE) does not describe the Eucharist explicitly as a sacrifice, though his use of the word “altar” in relation to Communion is thought by some to point that way. However, this use of sacrificial language is not surprising as his impending martyrdom was probably at the forefront of his mind. This is perhaps why in his Epistle to the Ephesians he called the bread that which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying” in the context of an exhortation to unity in one common Eucharist.[15] What is sure though is that he was convinced of the Eucharistic presence of Christ.[16]

            In his Letter to the Philadelphians, he warns them to be careful in how they observe the Eucharist saying, there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[17] Likewise, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he criticizes people who hold strange doctrine and abstain from the Eucharist because they don’t allow that it is the flesh of our Saviour.[18] His use of the word flesh [σάρξ], rather than body [σῶμα] makes sense since he seemed to be well acquainted with John’s gospel—which uses flesh instead of body in the Bread of Life discourse in John 6—but he shows no sign of knowing the synoptic gospels. So it is not warranted to place too much emphasis on his word choice to prove that he was affirming transubstantiation in his understanding of the Eucharistic presence. Context is key to understanding. When one reads the letters—Ignatius is stressing the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and of that same presence in the Eucharist in order to address his major concern of Docetist heretics who denied that Christ took on flesh.[19]

[Docetism—definition: (from the Greek δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn (to seem) /dókēsis (apparition, phantom), is defined as the heretical belief that Christ did not have a historical bodily existence or corporeal human form but was rather a mere semblance or appearance of bodily form without any true reality. It says that Jesus only seemed to be human but actually was not, his human form was an illusion. This was a heresy which the early church had to deal with frequently.]

            Justin Martyr (100-165CE) clearly referred to the Eucharist as a remembrance in his Dialogue with Trypho he says, “the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity,”[20] For Justin, Christ’s suffering is just one of the aspects remembered in the Eucharist.[21] He, also speaks of flesh rather than body here. The “flesh and blood” refer to his incarnate, living body, as opposed to his sacrificed body. For him, also due to concerns over Docetism, the incarnation seems to take precedence over the suffering and sacrificed body. So, for Justin, the bread is in remembrance of Jesus being made flesh for the sake of those believing in him. It must be remembered how little influence Pauline theology played on early Christians especially in the East since his letters were not widely spread as yet. So it is understandable that at least some Christian thinking about the Eucharistic presence would be more Johannine than Pauline or Synoptic. This fact is important to bear in mind when reading the early church fathers.

            By the time of Irenaeus (130-202CE) though, the other narratives of the New Testament were influencing the Eucharistic language and as a result we see him using “body and blood” instead of “flesh and blood”. Justin still sees it primarily in terms of spiritual nourishment of faith for the believer giving hope of resurrection rather than as that which was sacrificed for salvation—which would be a later realization as the rest of the Gospels and Paul’s letters are circulated.[22] The early church knew nothing of any sacrifice to God after Christ other than that of prayer and praise—so the presentation of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice via transubstantiation would be unwarranted.[23] Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215CE) and Tertullian (c.155-240) confirm this understanding in their writings.[24] Although Clement held a symbolic interpretation, he also did not deny the ‘real presence’, but rather there is a tendency to mix the two.[25] There is some debate over Tertullian’s use of “the figure of my body” in reference to the bread at the Last Supper. However it is clear in his letter Against Marcion that he is using the Eucharist to defend the bodily incarnation of Christ saying that a phantom “is incapable of a figure.”[26]

            The Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century), does not clearly address the topic of the presence of Christ.[27] The Didache does however prescribe very strict requirements for partaking in the sacrament in a worthy manner. Furthermore, there is a gradual shift of the view of sacrifice from that of prayer and praise to more of a material understanding as responses to Gnosticism and Docetism cause the church fathers to make a close connection between the Incarnation and the Eucharist.[28] “Without inquiring into the exact manner of Christ’s eucharistic presence, the ante-Nicene church presupposed some form of real presence.”[29] Also for Origen (c.184-253CE) the offering of Christ in the liturgy was symbolic though he did seem to confirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in a spiritualistic view.[30] Eusebius (c.260-340CE), the early church historian, is actually the first to represent the symbolic view and calls the Supper a commemoration of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood.”[31] Athanasius ‘the Great’ (c. 296-373CE), called the ‘the father of orthodoxy’, believed a spiritual participation of the divine virtues of the Logos in the symbols of the bread and wine. His Eucharistic doctrine is wholly foreign to the Roman Catholic view and much more similar to the Calvinistic view.[32] Macarius the Elder (c.300-391CE) held to a spiritual eating of the flesh of the Lord and also belongs to the symbolical school.[33]

            Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386CE), though he does not explicitly teach a transubstantiation of the elements, makes some sort of supernatural connection between the body of Christ and the elements. He says, “After the invocation of the Holy Ghost the bread of the Eucharist is no longer bread, but the body of Christ… Consider, therefore, the bread and the wine not as empty elements, for they are, according to the declaration of the Lord, the body and blood of Christ.”[34] (We will later look at what it means to say that the bread “is” the body and so on…) Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-395CE) calls the Eucharist the food of immortality and speaks of transformation of the elements in relation to the divine Logos. He says, “Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word.”[35] He then argues that the Eucharist is the means by which Christians are nourished and partake in Christ to share in incorruption. So what does this mean to us? Philip Schaff comments,

“the favorite comparison of the mysterious transformation with the incarnation of the Logos, which, in fact, was not an annihilation of the human nature, but an assumption of it into unity with the divine, is of itself in favor of the continuance of the substance of the elements; else it would abet the Eutychian heresy.”[36]

            Augustine (354-430CE) is recorded as saying that “the Lord Jesus Christ exhorted us by the promise of eternal life to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.” [37] However, in context, this is in reference to Jesus’ discourse in John 6 which is not about the Eucharist. Augustine, though, does show in his writings a strong reserve toward those seeking to partake in the Sacrament, typical of the ancient church, which implies a high doctrine of the sacredness of the Eucharist.[38] Augustine calls the Eucharist “our daily bread” and then elaborates on that concept:

“. . .the daily lessons which ye hear in church, are daily bread, and the hymns ye hear and repeat are daily bread. . . But when we shall have got to heaven, shall we hear the word, we who shall see the Word Himself, and hear the Word Himself, and eat and drink Him as the angels do now? Do the angels need books, and interpreters, and readers? Surely not. They read in seeing, for the Truth Itself they see. . .” [39]

            It is clear that what Augustine means here is that in partaking of the Eucharist, just as preaching and hymns facilitate spiritual nourishment, it also helps us perceive by faith the reality of Christ. Therefore, seeing, touching, eating and drinking in addition to hearing the word—incorporates the totality of our senses to perceive the reality of Christ. Augustine held a symbolic theory of the Supper, however he includes a real spiritual participation with the Lord by faith which is very close to Calvinistic and Orthodox Reformed doctrine.[40] Augustine’s own pupil, Facundus, taught that the sacramental bread “is not properly the body of Christ, but contains the mystery of the body.”[41]

            Christianity in the Fourth Century began to take on major changes as it was no longer a persecuted religion, but now rather a cultus publicus (public religion). As it grew rapidly, rituals and symbols from the civic world began coming in as many new converts were not as deeply committed or well instructed as before during times of persecution.[42] We see church leaders like Chrysostom (c.349-407CE) getting frustrated at the irreverent attitude of these new converts and as a result, the language of the liturgy started to take on a more exalted tone to instil reverence. Chrysostom speaks of a union of our whole nature with the body of Christ in the Eucharist.”[43] It is at this point that we start to see a significant change in the language surrounding the Eucharist, which also took on a more exalted tone and called “mystery”.[44]

[Monophysite—definition: one who believes that although Jesus took on an earthly human body, His nature remains altogether only divine.]

            Theodoret (c.393-458CE) at first sounds ‘Romish’ in his writings about the transformation of the Eucharistic elements, however, he clearly rejects the idea as an error akin to the Monophysite. He says, The mystical emblems of the body and blood of Christ continue in their original essence and form, they are visible and tangible as they were before [the consecration]; but the contemplation of the spirit and of faith sees in them that which they have become, and they are adored also as that which they are to believers.”[45] The Latin fathers such as Hilarius (461-468CE), Ambrose (374-397CE) and Gaudentius of Brescia (died 410CE) come closer to the later developed dogma of transubstantiation.[46] It is around then that “the liturgies begin to show traces of the influence of the mystery-cults.”[47] Yet even still, the elements offered as in “the prothesis-ceremony of the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, [are] treated as a symbolic representation of the sacrifice of the cross.”[48]

“But closely as these and similar expressions verge upon the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, they seem to contain at most a dynamic, not a substantial, change of the elements into the body and the blood of Christ. For, in the first place, it must be remembered there is a great difference between the half-poetic, enthusiastic, glowing language of devotion, in which the fathers, and especially the liturgies, speak of the eucharistic sacrifice, and the clear, calm, and cool language of logic and doctrinal definition. In the second place, the same fathers apply the same or quite similar terms to the baptismal water and the chrism of confirmation, without intending to teach a proper change of the substance of these material elements into the Holy Ghost.”[49]

            The real difficulty with the early sources is that they often do not speak to the question we are asking as specifically as we may like them to. It would seem that Eucharistic presence is simply assumed, and much of the writing doesn’t bother to deal too directly with developing a well thought out or defined theology of the Lord’s Supper and all its fine details. It wasn’t until the ninth century that the Eucharist started to become a subject of theological controversy. Hence the doctrine of the ancient church on this point lacks the clearness and definiteness which the Nicene dogma of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian Christology, and the Augustinian anthropology and soteriology acquired from the controversies preceding them.”[50] It is interesting that in a few of the works of the early fathers, for example St. Basil, Justin Martyr, Tertulian, and Ignatius, the Eucharist is used in apologetic writings against heresies who denied Christ had a physical body (Docetism) or that Christ was a created creature (Arianism).[51]

            There is quite a range of variance in views of the presence: the mystic view by those such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; the symbolic view which Tertullian and Cyprian seem to take and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement and Origen.[52] Furthermore, simply because these church fathers are early writers and therefore closer to the time of the apostles, does not make them infallible. The old liturgies, while they presuppose the actual presence of Christ, “speak throughout in the stately language of sentiment, and nowhere attempt an explanation of the nature and mode of this presence, and of its relation to the still visible forms of bread and wine.”[53] Neither do they infer any adoration of the elements themselves which would be a logical necessity from the doctrine of transubstantiation much later in the twelfth century.

            The early persecuted church seemed to be far too busy being slaughtered for their faith and other more pressing matters to worry about producing lengthy treaties on the minute details of the Eucharist which would be disputed in later years. Not all of the early church fathers had access to the entire canon of the New Testament. Some erred in various ways and others would stress certain points more than others in order to make an argument depending on what heresy or issues they were responding to at the time. So the use of these sources should be weighed properly with respect to their context. One thing which does seem apparent is that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation as it stands today was not the widespread view of the early church as shown by the amount of variety and range of their writings. Their testimony, while important, is not the ultimate deciding factor. We must consider further the context and teaching of the Scriptures themselves. We will look at this next, but first I will set the stage with a look at the culture and understanding of symbolism in the first century.


First Century Culture

            Looking at the NT times, the key event in Israel’s history of salvation is the Exodus, and the Passover was the meal commemorating it. “The Passover lamb was a reminder that the firstborn of Israel had been protected from death by the blood of the lamb. Jesus understood Himself as a better Passover lamb.”[54] At the Last Supper, Jesus interprets the giving of the elements, which was also a part of Jewish Passover ritual (Exodus 12:26-27). Paul’s reference to “Christ, our Passover Lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7) and “the cup of thanksgiving” (1 Cor. 10:16) which was the third cup of the Passover ritual further strengthen this association.[55] Each item on the table was a symbol of something to the Jews reminding them of God’s deliverance from Egypt, so the disciples at the Last Supper were already thinking symbolically.[56] Therefore, we should bear this in mind when interpreting the narrative of the Last Supper.

            Sacramentalism was an essential part of Judaism in the first century. Ceremonies, rites of immersion, circumcision and sacrifices were seen as means of effectively mediating a changed relationship between God and man. The fact that they were material means held no difficulty for the Hebrew. Our dualistic distinctions between the inward and outward or visible and spiritual would have been strange to the Hebrew mindset. In fact, “no fundamental break was made between the spiritual and the physical. Everything in life was directly related to God.”[57] These acts were seen as channels of mediating various blessings and were often thought to be received specifically through eating and drinking as shown by the various Jewish feasts.

            Furthermore, the ancients believed that dining with people of another cult established a sort of bond with their gods as well. This is seen in Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 about food offered to idols. In the same way, to eat and drink what was blessed by God was also to enter into covenantal fellowship with Him.[58] The Lord instituted numerous feasts for remembrance and establishment of covenants with Israel. This is also seen at Sinai, where after the giving of the law, the people “beheld God, and ate and drank” (Ex. 24:11).[59] In terms of sacrificial atonements, Aaronic priests were to eat the sacrifices of atonement which were made (Ex. 29:33). Moses was outraged when Aaron’s sons failed to eat the sacrifice (Lev. 10:17). In the Psalms we read, “the Lord is my chosen portion and my cup” (Psa. 16:5). So, this concept of consumption to convey specific blessings from God—predicated on the context of obedient faith and repentance—is a thoroughly established idea in the OT Jewish mind and continues into the NT.[60]

            We can be certain that these practices of Hebrew thought were carried into Jesus’ day through the witness of the intertestamental and New Testament literature. In Sirach 9:16 is says, “Let just men eat and drink with thee; and let thy glorying be in the fear of the Lord.”[61] In the gospels—Jesus is charged with “eating with tax collectors and sinners”—an offense to the Pharisees’ mind because of the relationship associated with sharing a meal with people in Jewish culture. In Acts 11 there was a dispute between the Judaizers and Peter over eating in the house of Cornelius.[62] Also, the fact that “eating bread with a man bars one from hostile acts against him” makes Judas Iscariot’s betrayal stand out all the more.[63] Furthermore, there is the consummation of all things with the “marriage feast of the Lamb” in Revelations 19, where believers enter into perfect, eternal fellowship with their God and Saviour. So eating is a fairly significant and connected concept to spirituality here.


Symbolism

            For Jesus’ atoning sacrifice to be truly a fulfilment of God’s new covenant with His people, they would have to be personally involved or associated with it. In Hebrews 9:16 it says, “Where a covenant is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.” In the OT sacrifices, this was conveyed by the worshipper touching the animal victim before it was slain thereby identifying themselves with it and its death for atonement (Lev. 1:4, 3:2, 8, 13; 16:21).[64] So too, we must share Christ’s sacrificial death if we are to be partners in this new covenant. Following the train of thought, it seems that part of the participation and identifying in Christ’s sacrifice as the Passover Lamb is seen—in one way—as conveyed in the celebration of the Eucharist. This is important to note, since after Paul gave instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 for the Lord’s Supper he made the connection in regards to resurrection in 15:22, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Could it be then, that participation in Christ as the Passover Lamb is seen in one way as conveyed in the celebration of the Eucharist?

            Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, is accredited with the purely symbolic view of the Eucharist that many Protestants hold to.[65] However, the weakness of this interpretation is that it places emphasis only on Jesus’ action. In this view, you can explain the historical celebration, but not the repetition—in which the emphasis is on the participation of the partakers. So why must we partake to enjoy the benefits of something which is merely symbolic? Why not just watch and be edified as the Lord’s Supper is narrated and acted out? [66] Not to mention, as we have seen, the clear testimony of the early church shows that there was something more going on than just a mere sign or remembrance. N.T. Wright says, “Modern westerners, who live in a world that has rid itself of many of its ancient symbols. . . have to make a huge effort of historical imagination to enter a world where a single action can actually say something.”[67] May not the symbolic actions and words function in such a way which result in them having the sort of effect like that of Jesus’ parables or the actions of the prophets had? They go beyond the simple imparting of information to actually bringing about a change in the person receiving it.[68] So then what is meant by the phrase, “this is my body” and “this is my blood” (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24)?


Rome’s Position

            In Roman Catholic soteriology as seen in the Catechism, “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”[69] However, when Jesus says “this is my body and blood” then hands the disciples the elements, they have already been broken and poured out. So, even though he had not yet gone to Calvary, he is depicting his sacrificial obedience as already completed. Therefore, the emphasis is not on the action of the breaking or pouring out—as if it were an ongoing sacrifice—but rather at the Last Supper the finished work of the Cross was anticipated. What he has set out to do, he will surely accomplish.

            Therefore, unlike a Roman Catholic sacrificial understanding of the Mass, it alludes “to that sacrificing as already having happened, not as going on then and there. The gift that the Sacrament holds for us is the product of a completed sacrifice.”[70] The blood which Matthew and Paul record the Lord speaking of is that of the “new covenant in My blood”—which is the blood of the Cross. Furthermore, “the Bible plainly teaches in Hebrews 9 and 10 that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was a one-time, never to be repeated, complete and perfect action.”[71] This is the whole point of Hebrews 10:10-14. “Christ’s sacrifice accomplishes its goal. He does not stand, repeatedly offering His work. His work of atonement is completed. Instead, He is seated, His work is finished, the one offering needed to perfect for all time.”[72] It is a departure from the significance of the Eucharistic words to view it as a sacrifice which either occurs or reoccurs there.


CLICK HERE for PART 2: The Theological Argument



ENDNOTES for Part 1:

[1]Sproul, What Is the Lord’s Supper?, 32
[2]Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 130; Howard, Interpreting the Lord’s Supper, 13; Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, 273–274; Allison, Roman Catholic Theology, 307; CCC 1374
[3]Sproul, What Is the Lord’s Supper?, 34–35.
[4]Allison, Roman Catholic Theology, 309, 317; CCC 1381; see also Aquinas, Summa Theologica, pt. 3, q. 75, art. 1 & 5; also Gummey, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1925
[5] Allison, Roman Catholic Theology, 308; CCC 1376
[6] Allison, Roman Catholic Theology, 317; see also Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, pt. 3, 1. 75, art. 5; also Gummey, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1925
[7] White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 162; see Waterworth, The Council of Trent, 82-84; also Neuner, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, 621
[8] White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 163; see Waterworth, The Council of Trent, The Thirteenth Session., 154-155
[9] Westminster, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 150-152
[10]Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 125; see also Allison, Roman Catholic Theology, 303-304 and CCC 1352-1353
[11] Allison, Roman Catholic Theology, 318
[12] Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 59-60
[13] Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 570
[14] Jones, Christ’s Eucharistic Presence, 28, 33
[15] Ignatius, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 58; Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 59
[16] Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 87
[17] Ignatius, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 81
[18] Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 154–158
[19] Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 87-88
[20] Justin Martyr, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 215
[21] Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 84
[22] Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 89-91
[23] Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 43
[24] Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 45
[25] Jones, Christ’s Eucharistic Presence, 30; see also Clement, Fathers of the Second Century, 219
[26] Tertullian, Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, 418
[27] See Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers, 232; also Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 26
[28] Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 45
[29] Jones, Christ’s Eucharistic Presence, 28
[30] Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 47
[31] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 495
[32] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 496
[33] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 497
[34] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 494
[35] Gregory of Nyssa, “The Great Catechism,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc., 505
[36] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 495
[37] Augustine, Homilies on the Gospels, 504
[38]Schaff, Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, 277
[39] Augustine, Homilies on the Gospels, 282
[40] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 498
[41] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 500
[42] Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 139; Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 64
[43] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 494
[44] Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins, 139-144
[45] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 497
[46] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 494
[47] Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 49
[48] Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith, 46
[49] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 495
[50] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 492
[51] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 497
[52] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 492
[53] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 501
[54] Massey, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, no pages—digital reference from LOGOS Bible Software
[55] Massey, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, no pages
[56] White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 176
[57] McCormick, The Lord’s Supper, 27-28
[58] McCormick, The Lord’s Supper, 36, 40; In the gospels—Jesus is charged with “eating with tax collectors and sinners” due to the relationship associated with sharing a meal. Also, in Acts 11 there was a dispute between the Judaizers and Peter over eating in the house of Cornelius.
[59] McCormick, The Lord’s Supper, 35-36
[60] McCormick, The Lord’s Supper, 37-38
[61] The Holy Bible: NRSV, Sir 9:16; Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 307.
[62] McCormick, The Lord’s Supper, 40
[63] Howard, Interpreting the Lord’s Supper, 59
[64] McCormick, The Lord’s Supper, 47
[65] See Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, 267
[66] Schweitzer, The Problem of the Lord’s Supper, 63-64
[67] Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 554
[68] Tinker, Themelios: Volume 26, 19–20
[69] White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 165; CCC 1364
[70] McCormick, The Lord’s Supper, 24
[71] White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 174
[72] White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, 178-17

Advertisements

One thought on “Holy Communion – The Benefits and Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – PART 1: The Historical Argument”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s