I recently received the following inquiry by e-mail:

Brothers at apologeticacatolica.org. I recently heard the claim that the Eucharist was an invention of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and that the first Christians never believed in it. How much truth is there to this? Could you tell me what the Catholic Church teaches about transubstantiation and whether it accords with the faith of the early Church?

Response

Some Protestant denominations have adopted a kind of alternative history that leads them to distort the facts and thereby justify their own doctrines. To cite one example, in the evangelism manual of the Church of God (Israelite) we read:

“In the History of the Councils we find this note, the result of the Council of Trent: ‘In the pure and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and man really and substantially contained under the appearance of these visible elements’.

But in the days of the first Apostles, and for many centuries afterward, no thought was given to the current doctrine of the Mass. The Fathers of the first six centuries were completely ignorant of this Roman doctrine. The doctrine of the transubstantiation of the host did not become a permanent doctrine in the Roman Church until the Fourth Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215 A.D.”[1]

First we must study what the Church actually teaches about transubstantiation, the alternative positions held by Protestant churches, and then we will review what the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers taught in the first three centuries of Christianity.

What Is Transubstantiation?

The Council of Trent teaches on this matter:

“But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has at all times been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”[2]

The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, for its part, states:

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: “This is my body which will be given up for you… This is the cup of my Blood…”

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ Himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Based on this, we can define transubstantiation as the total conversion of the host and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Although the bread and wine retain their original appearance and taste, they are truly the Body and Blood of the Lord hidden under the appearances of bread and wine.

Transubstantiation differs from consubstantiation (the term commonly used to designate the Lutheran position, although Lutheran theologians prefer to speak of “sacramental union”) in that transubstantiation (prefix “trans”) denotes a change of substance, while consubstantiation (prefix “con”) signifies that no change of substance has occurred and that the Lord comes with the bread and wine, whose substance remains unchanged.

The Lutheran theology manual by Professor Georg Metzger, based on Luther’s catechism, explains:

“Our catechism tells us concerning the Sacrament of the Altar: ‘It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.’ Thus we confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of the Lord are eaten and drunk under the bread and wine. Consequently, bread and wine are still present in the Holy Supper. We confess this in opposition to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope and his followers teach that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ, so that after the priest has blessed the earthly elements, there are no longer bread and wine, but only the body and blood of Christ. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches us that in the Holy Supper we also eat bread and drink wine. 1 Corinthians 11:26-28; 10:16. Thus the bread in the Holy Supper is still bread, and the wine is still wine. But when we eat the bread in the Holy Supper, we at the same time eat the true body of the Lord. And when we drink the wine in the Holy Supper, we at the same time drink the true blood of the Lord. Thus, according to the clear words of God, the Holy Supper is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine.”[3]

Therefore, although Catholics and Lutherans alike confess that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of the Lord, we differ in that we believe the consecrated bread and wine are now the body and blood of Christ hidden under the species of bread and wine, while Lutherans hold that they also remain bread and wine.

However, a great many Protestant churches hold a position distinct from both the Catholic and the Lutheran, for they believe and affirm that Christ is not present in the Eucharist, but that the bread and wine are mere symbols. The same Lutheran manual mentioned above explains it as follows:

“c. Our catechism says: ‘It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

This means it is the real, natural body of Christ and His real and natural blood. Why does our catechism emphasize this? It does so because of the false prophets and churches that refuse to believe the mystery of the Holy Supper. Especially the Reformed churches, the sects, the Methodists, the Pentecostals — in fact, all other Protestant churches outside Lutheranism — teach in this way. They will not believe Christ’s words; they will not believe that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Holy Supper and that those who come to the sacrament truly eat and drink these things. It is in truth a wonderful mystery. We cannot comprehend it by reason. It seems impossible to us. Consequently, those churches teach that Christ’s words must be taken figuratively, understood in another sense. According to them, Christ did not mean that the Holy Supper was truly His real, natural body, but only that the bread signifies His body, that it portrays it. He was referring only to the spiritual body of Christ. Christians are to receive this spiritual body in the Holy Supper — that is, Christ and His benefits — by faith, while the true natural body of the Lord sits in heaven. Against these false prophets, who rely on their own reason, our catechism says: ‘It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”[4]

What Did the Church Fathers Teach?

Having surveyed the differences between all the positions encountered, let us now delve directly into the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and those who lived before St. Thomas Aquinas, to investigate whether this doctrine was in fact believed by the Christian Church or whether it was a new doctrine invented by St. Thomas.

For my research I will use the translations presented in the books Primitive Eucharistic Texts, Volumes I and II by Jesús Solano, B.A.C., Apostolic Fathers by Daniel Ruiz Bueno, B.A.C., and Greek Apologist Fathers by Daniel Ruiz Bueno, B.A.C., and I will draw upon the commentaries the authors provide in their works, especially those of Jesús Solano.

Ignatius of Antioch (? – 107 A.D.)

With regard to the Eucharist, St. Ignatius is always very clear and unequivocal. He calls the Eucharist “the medicine of immortality” and categorically declares: “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” He vigorously condemns the Docetists, who claimed that Jesus had not had a true body but only an apparent one, and because of this error, St. Ignatius comments, they refused to take part in the Eucharist and died spiritually by withdrawing from the gift of God.

“…breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”[5]

“I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, of the seed of David; and I desire His blood for drink, which is incorruptible love.”[6]

“Be ye careful, therefore, to observe one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God.”[7]

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer [the Docetists], because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. How much better would it be for them to celebrate the Eucharist, so that they might rise again!”[8]

“Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it… It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast.”[9]

Despite the evidence, some Protestants have raised the objection that Saint Ignatius also calls “flesh” of Jesus Christ things that were not so in the proper sense. For example, in the letter to the Philadelphians he writes: “Cleaving to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus” (ch. 5), a text that merely expresses the desire to hold fast to both, but does not infer that they are the same thing.

In the letter to the Philadelphians he writes: “to the [Church] which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, which is my joy eternal and abiding.” But here again there is nothing that allows one to deduce that the real presence is denied.

In the letter to the Trallians he writes: “You, therefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be ye renewed in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ” (ch. 8). With regard to this, Jesús Solano explains that the fact that an author sometimes uses a word in a symbolic sense does not mean that he must always use it in that sense. Saint Ignatius uses the word “flesh” or “blood” no fewer than thirty-seven times, and only here does he use it symbolically. It is also known from literary sources that the Docetists denied the reality of the Lord’s flesh; it is therefore illogical to think that when Saint Ignatius, after condemning their doctrine, understands “flesh” in a symbolic sense as they did — for it was not in this sense that the Docetists denied it.

The Didache (65–80 A.D.)

The Didache is very emphatic in stating that not everyone may participate in the Eucharist, since one cannot “give the holy thing to the dogs.” Before participating it requires confession of sins so that the sacrifice may be pure. It is also a clear testimony that the primitive Church already recognized in the Eucharist the spotless and perfect sacrifice presented to the Father in Malachi 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”

“Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.’”[10]

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they have been reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is full of wonder among the nations.’”[11]

Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.)

Saint Justin upholds the unanimous testimony of the Church in confessing that the Eucharist is not food like any other, but is “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Although he had to combat the accusations leveled at Christians of eating human flesh, and although in defending himself against those charges he could have alleged that the Eucharist was a “symbol,” he does not do so; instead, he professes with absolute clarity the realism that the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are food for Christians.

One of Saint Justin’s celebrated works is the Dialogue with Trypho, in which he holds a debate with a Jew of his time. In this work he again bears testimony to the faith of the primitive Church that the Eucharist is the perpetual and spotless Sacrifice of which the prophet spoke in Malachi 1:11, in contrast to the Protestant perspective that denies the sacrificial character of the Eucharist and maintains that the Lord’s Supper is a mere memorial.

A most important commentary on the subject at hand is made by Jesús Solano in his work Textos Eucarísticos Primitivos, where he notes that Saint Justin with complete clarity excludes the permanence of the bread alongside the flesh of the Lord, thus rejecting consubstantiation. The parallelism of ideas would lead one to say that just as Jesus Christ had flesh and blood, so the eucharistic food has the flesh and blood of Jesus; however, he does not say that but rather, changing the construction, writes that the eucharistic food is the flesh and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). This expression excludes the permanence of the bread and, in its obvious meaning, indicates the change — the conversion of the bread into the flesh of the Lord. This is confirmed by the use that Saint Justin coins for the word “give thanks”: up to his time it had been used intransitively; he uses it in the passive: “eucharistized food,” which literally we would translate as “food made a thanksgiving.” This emphatic passive coined by Saint Justin, combined with the change of construction just noted, accentuates the note of a change wrought in ordinary food by virtue of which the bread is now the flesh of Christ.

“This food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”[12]

“God speaks by Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.”

He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane it.”[13]

“But for the purpose of explaining the revelation of Jesus Christ the Holy, I resume the text and say that, in this manner also, that vision was made for us who believe in Christ the High Priest, even He who was crucified…

For as that Jesus (Jeshua), who is called a priest by the prophet, appeared in filthy garments… so we, who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in the God who made all things, have been stripped, through the name of His first-begotten Son, of the filthy garments, i.e., of our sins… we are the true high-priestly race of God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles sacrifices are presented to Him well-pleasing and pure [cf. Mal 1:11].

For all the sacrifices through this name which Jesus Christ enjoined to be offered, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, are well-pleasing to God. But the sacrifices offered by you, and through those your priests, He rejects, saying, “And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name is glorified among the Gentiles,” He says; “but ye profane it” [Mal 1:10ff].”[14]

Irenaeus of Lyon (130–202 A.D.)

In the theology presented by Saint Irenaeus, the same holds true as with Saint Justin: the certainty that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ is crystal clear. He explicitly affirms that “the cup is His own Blood” (that of Christ) and that “the bread is no longer ordinary bread but Eucharist, constituted by two elements, earthly and heavenly.” Jesús Solano notes that Saint Irenaeus does not refer here to how the Eucharist is constituted, but rather to how it comes to be constituted: the earthly element is “the bread” and the heavenly element is “the invocation (epiclesis) of God.”

Saint Irenaeus also bears witness that even among heretical groups the Church’s faith was shared, namely that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ; however, it cannot be established that the bread consecrated by them (the heretics) is truly so, because they do not acknowledge that Christ is the Word, Son of the Maker of the world. He exhorts them to change their minds or else to cease offering the said sacrifice.

“Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own created things — not as if He stood in need of them, but that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful — He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ‘This is My body.’ And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new testament; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: ‘I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even to the going down, My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the Lord Almighty;’ indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.”[15]

“How, then, shall they be assured that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup of his blood, unless they acknowledge that he is the Son of the Maker of this world, that is, his Word, through whom the wood bears fruit, and the springs flow, and the earth yields first the blade, then the ear, and then the full grain in the ear?

And how do they also say that the flesh corrupts and does not partake of life, when it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord? Therefore, either let them change their opinion, or else cease offering the things just mentioned. For us, however, our belief is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our belief. For we offer to Him His own things, proclaiming in harmony the communion and union of the flesh and the spirit. For just as the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread but the Eucharist, constituted of two elements — earthly and heavenly — so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but possess the hope of the resurrection forever.”[16]

“And he [the truly spiritual disciple] shall truly examine the doctrine of Marcion — how he understands that there are two gods, separated from one another by an infinite distance…! And how, if the Lord is the son of another Father [distinct from the Creator], did He act justly when, taking the bread of this our creation, He confessed it to be His body, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood?”[17]

“Those are altogether vain who despise the entire dispensation of God and deny the salvation of the flesh, disdaining its regeneration, claiming that it is incapable of incorruptibility. But if the flesh is not saved, then neither has the Lord redeemed us with his blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist a sharing in his blood, nor is the bread which we break a sharing in his body. For blood comes only from veins and flesh and the rest of human substance, which the Word of God truly became, thereby redeeming us with his blood. As his Apostle also says: in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

For we are members of him, and we are nourished through creation; and he who provides for us the creation, making his sun to rise and sending rain as he wills, declared that the cup from the creation is his own blood, by which our blood is augmented, and he reaffirmed that the bread from the creation is his own body, by which our bodies grow.

3. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the bread that has been made receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and by these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported — how can they say that the flesh is incapable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, the flesh that is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is made a member of him? As the blessed Apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians: For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones; and he says this not of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh, but of the truly human organism that consists of flesh, nerves, and bones, which is nourished by his cup, which is his blood, and grows by the bread, which is his body. And just as the slip of vine planted in the earth bears fruit in its season, and the grain of wheat falling into the earth and being dissolved rises multiplied by the Spirit of God who contains all things; and then through the wisdom of God they become serviceable to men, and receiving the Word of God become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ, so also our bodies, nourished by it and placed in the earth and dissolved in it, shall rise in their time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God the Father.”[18]

Tertullian (160–220 A.D.)

Although Tertullian is not considered a Father of the Church but rather an apologist, and at the end of his life fell into heresy by embracing Montanism, he was widely read before he left the Catholic Church.

Some Protestant apologists have attempted to take excerpts from Tertullian’s texts to suggest that he was unaware of the Real Presence. An example of the manipulation of those texts is found on the website administered by Daniel Sapia, in an article developed by Guillermo Hernández Agüero. The quotation used by Mr. Guillermo in its context is this:

“…With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer — O destroyer of the Law, who yet longed to keep even the Passover! Of course, he would have delighted in the flesh of the Jewish lamb. Or was it he who, since he was to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearer was not to open his mouth, desired to fulfill the figure of his saving blood? He could also have been betrayed by any stranger, lest I say that even in this the psalm was fulfilled: He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me… But this would have been proper for another Christ, not for the one who was fulfilling the prophecies…

Having declared, therefore, that he had greatly desired to eat the Passover as his own — for it is unworthy of God to desire what belongs to another — having taken the bread and distributed it to his disciples, he made it his body, saying: This is my body, that is, “the figure of my body”. But it would not have been a figure unless it were a true body. Besides, a mere phantom, as a vain thing, could not have held the figure.

Or if, for this reason, he made the bread his body — because he lacked a true body — then he ought to have offered the bread in sacrifice for us. For Marcion’s emptiness, it would have been the bread that was crucified, and not rather the melon that Marcion had in place of a heart! Not understanding that this figure of the body of Christ is ancient, as Jeremiah says: They devised plots against me, saying: Come, let us put wood in his bread, that is, the cross in his body. Thus he who illumines the ancient figures, by calling the bread his body, declared sufficiently that he wished to signify the bread of old. And so in the commemoration of the cup, establishing the testament sealed with his blood, he confirmed the substance of his body. For blood cannot belong to any body that is not flesh. For if some non-carnal property of the body is urged against us, certainly if it is not carnal it will have no blood. Thus the proof of the reality of the body shall be confirmed by the testimony of the flesh, and the proof of the reality of the flesh by the testimony of the blood. And that you may recognize the ancient figure of blood in wine, Isaiah says… Far more plainly does Genesis, in the blessing of Judah — from whose tribe the origin of Christ’s flesh was to come, already foreshadowed then in Judah — say: He will wash his garment in wine, and his mantle in the blood of grapes [Gen 49:11], signifying by the robe and the mantle the flesh and the blood, and by the wine the blood. So now he consecrated his blood in wine, he who then made wine the figure of his blood…”[19]

To understand Tertullian’s words, we must study the context. Marcion denied that Christ had a true body, and therefore the force of Tertullian’s argument consisted in explaining that the bread could not be the true body of Christ if Christ had not had a true body. How could the Church believe that the consecrated bread was the body of Christ if Christ had no body? Additionally, when he says: “He made the bread his body,” he denotes a change of substance. The reality of the Eucharist and the faith of the Church demonstrated the physical reality of the body of Christ.

He uses the expression “figure of his body” to refer to the real body. He speaks of the Eucharistic bread as a figure of the body of Christ because the true body of Christ had been announced by the Prophets under the Old Testament in the figure of bread, just as the true blood had been prefigured in wine. He goes on further to affirm the reality of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and speaks of it as a “sacrament”.

There are, however, other texts of Tertullian that leave no room for doubt regarding his position on the Eucharist. It is especially noteworthy when he affirms that they suffer anxiety if anything of the chalice or bread should fall to the ground — something that would make no sense if they were thought to be merely symbols.

“Wherefore, by the sacrament of the bread and the chalice, we have already proved in the Gospel the truth of the Lord’s body and blood against the phantom upheld by Marcion…”[20]

“The sacrament of the Eucharist, entrusted by the Lord at the time of supper to all, we receive even in assemblies before daybreak, and from no other hands than those of those who preside;… We suffer anxiety if anything of our chalice or our bread should fall to the ground.”[21]

“The zeal of the faith will speak in tears at this point: is it possible that a Christian should come from the idols to the Church, from the workshop of the adversary to the house of God; that he should lift up to God the Father hands that are mothers of idols; that he should pray with those hands to which those outside pray against God, and bring the body of the Lord near those hands which bear the bodies to the demons?…”[22]

“…he then also receives the first ring, with which, after being questioned, he seals the pledge of faith, and is thus afterwards nourished with the delights of the body of the Lord, namely the Eucharist.”[23]

Clement of Alexandria (150–215 A.D.)

Clement of Alexandria bears witness to the liturgical practice of “eucharistizing” — according to a fixed rule of the Church — the bread and the mixture of wine and water, but he combats the Encratite heretics who eucharistized water alone. He calls the Eucharist an “oblation”, affirms that it was prefigured in the consecrated food of bread and wine offered by Melchizedek. He affirms that there is a food of bread that is Jesus Himself, and that he who eats of that bread does not die. He affirms that Jesus gives himself also as a drink of immortality.

The most obscure text of Clement on the Eucharist is found in his work the Paedagogus. He affirms here that the Eucharist is in itself life-giving and confers immortality; the Spirit is the one who produces this vivification, and this Spirit is for Clement the Spirit that is the power of the Word, that is, the divine nature of the Word. However, he distinguishes the carnal blood of the Lord, by which he redeemed us, from the spiritual (pneumatic) blood “by which we have been anointed”, which makes us partakers of incorruption. From the context it is clear that this “spiritual blood” is the life-giving Spirit, and it is not that Clement is suggesting the idea that in the Eucharist the true Blood of the Lord is not present. In the second place, Clement speaks of the Eucharist as a mixture of the drink (wine with water) and the Word. The expression says nothing about the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, but rather points to the causes that are at work in the making of the Eucharist.

“It is therefore necessary that each prove himself: the one to see whether he is worthy to speak and leave commentaries, the other to see whether he is sufficiently righteous to be able to listen and read; just as also those who, according to custom, distribute the Eucharist, allow each one of the people to take his due portion.”[24]

“And to those who lack understanding I make my recommendation, saying, thus speaks Wisdom, manifestly referring to those who wander among the heresies, take by stealth, with pleasure, the loaves and the sweet stolen water [Prov 9:16f]; clearly designating the bread and the water, not in other heresies, but in those which, contrary to the rule of the Church, employ bread and water in the oblation; for there are also those who eucharistize water alone [unmixed with wine].”[25]

“For Salem is interpreted as peace, of which peace our Saviour is described as king, of whom Moses says: Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God [Gen 14:18]; he offered the bread and wine as sanctified food in figure [type] of the Eucharist.”[26]

“I [the Savior] am your sustainer, who have given myself [as] bread, of which whoever has tasted no longer has any further experience of death, and who have given myself [as] the drink of immortality.”[27]

Hippolytus (? – 235 A.D.)

Saint Hippolytus is categorical in affirming that care must be taken to prevent the unbeliever from eating of the Eucharist, since “it is the body of Christ.”

“After Judah had been with her [cf. Gen 38:16ff], he gave her a pledge, namely three things: the signet ring, the cord, and the staff he was carrying in his hand — these were the pledges that he had been with her. In the same way Christ has given his Church three things, namely his body, his blood, and baptism. And if Tamar was saved by three things, namely by the ring, the cord, and the staff, so the holy Church, by three things — by the profession of faith, by the body, and by the blood — was equally saved from idolatry, and likewise chose for her children salvation from worldliness through Christ; and we receive his body and his blood, for he is the pledge of eternal life for everyone who draws near to him with humility.”[28]

“…Then it says: After the sixty-two weeks the times will have passed…He will establish the Covenant for many during one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and the drink offering will be taken away; and upon the sanctuary, a desolating abomination [cf. Dan 9:26f]. So then, once the sixty-two weeks are fulfilled and Christ has come and the Gospel has been proclaimed everywhere, when the times are fulfilled, one week — the last — will be left, in which Elijah and Enoch will appear. And in the middle of it the desolating abomination [Dan 9:27] will come, the antichrist, who will announce devastation to the world. After he has come, there will be taken away the sacrifice and the drink offering, which are now offered to God by the peoples everywhere [cf. Mal 1:11].”[29]

“Both things the body of the Lord provided for the world: sacred blood and holy water.”[30]

“Let every faithful person take care to receive the Eucharist before tasting anything else. For if he is faithful in receiving it, even if deadly poison is given to him, it will have no power over him. Let all take diligent care that no unbeliever eats of the Eucharist, nor mice nor any other animal, and that absolutely nothing falls into the Eucharist and something perishes. It is the body of Christ, on which all the faithful feed, and it must not be treated with contempt…”[31]

Origen (185 – 254 A.D.)

With regard to the Eucharist, the writings of Origen follow the same line as those of the other Fathers. Like Tertullian, he shows concern that the consecrated bread and wine should not fall to the floor. He affirms that “just as manna was food in a figurative sense, so now clearly the flesh of the Word of God is true food, as he himself says: My flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.” In all these cases Origen refers to “true food” not as bread but as “the flesh of the Word of God.” He also affirms that receiving the body unworthily brings ruin upon oneself, and he refers to the eucharistic celebration as “the table of the body of Christ and of the very chalice of his blood.”

“…If you go up with him, then, to celebrate the Passover, he will give you the chalice of the New Testament; he will also give you the bread of blessing; he will grant you his body and his blood.”[32]

“You who are accustomed to attend the divine mysteries know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you guard it with all care and veneration, lest a single particle fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you consider yourselves guilty — and rightly so — if anything of it is lost through negligence. And if you employ, and with good reason, such great care in preserving his body, how do you judge it any less impious to have neglected his word than his body?”[33]

“Before, baptism was in a figure in the cloud and in the sea; now regeneration is clearly in water and in the Holy Spirit. Then manna was food in a figure; now clearly the flesh of the Word of God is true food, as he himself says: My flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.”[34]

“And they shall enter them [the chosen things of the world] without consideration [Ezek 7:22 according to the LXX; cf. v. 20 also according to the LXX]…Thus it must be said that he who, after the conjugal act, indifferent to the impurity contracted in himself, consents to pray over the bread of the Eucharist, enters the holy things of the Church without consideration; for such a one profanes the holy things and performs a disorderly action.”[35]

[Mt 26:23]… And if you can understand the spiritual table and the spiritual food and the supper of the Lord — all of which Christ had deigned to make him [Judas] a partaker of — you will see still more clearly the greatness of his wickedness, since he betrayed the Savior, master and at the same time the food of the divine table and of the chalice (and this on the day of the Passover), unmindful in bodily goods of the master’s love, and in spiritual goods of his teaching, always shared without envy. Like him in the Church are all those who lay snares for their brethren, with whom they have frequently sat together at the same table of the body of Christ and at the same chalice of his blood.”[36]

“Are you not afraid to receive the body of Christ in communion, approaching the Eucharist as though you were clean and pure, and how can you escape the judgment of God? Do you not remember what is written: that for this reason there are many weak and sick among you, and many who are dying? Why are there many weak? Because they do not judge themselves, nor examine themselves, nor understand what it is to participate in the Church, nor what it is to approach so many and such eminent sacraments. They suffer what those who have a fever are accustomed to suffer when they dare to eat the food of healthy persons, namely, that they bring ruin upon themselves.”[37]

“And Celsus, for that reason, being a man who does not know God, offers his thanksgivings to demons; we, on the contrary, giving thanks to the Creator of all, eat the breads offered with the act of thanksgiving and prayer over the gifts received — made by prayer into a certain holy body that sanctifies those who use it with a sound purpose.”[38]

However, Jesús Solano notes that Origen has a much-debated text which we shall reproduce below; although it is not properly a eucharistic text, he employs eucharistic terminology in an allegorical sense. For one who knows Origen’s passion for relating texts of Sacred Scripture to one another and for seeking allegories in that milieu of “gnosis” in Alexandria, his expressing himself with such allegories poses no serious problem regarding his orthodoxy. It would be unjust and unscientific to deduce Origen’s eucharistic thought from one or another passage rather than from the totality of all of them. Despite having had numerous adversaries, there is no record that anyone ever challenged him for a less-than-pure eucharistic doctrine.

“This bread which God the Word confesses to be his body is the word that nourishes souls, a word proceeding from God the Word and the bread of the heavenly bread that has been set upon the table of which it is written: You have prepared a table before me in the presence of my persecutors. And this drink which God the Word confesses to be his blood is the word that quenches thirst and wondrously inebriates the hearts of those who drink it — a drink that is in the chalice of which it has been written: and how excellent is your chalice that inebriates. And this drink is the fruit of the true vine which says: I am the true vine; and it is the blood of that grape which, cast into the winepress of the passion, produced this drink. As the bread also is the word of Christ, made from that grain of wheat which, falling into the earth, bore much fruit. For it was not of that visible bread which he held in his hands that God the Word said “my body,” but of the word in whose mystery that bread was to be broken; nor of that visible drink did he say “my blood,” but of the word in whose mystery that drink was to be poured out. For what else can body or blood of God the Word be, if not the word that nourishes and the word that gladdens the heart?”[39]

Cyprian of Carthage (200 – 258 A.D.)

The eucharistic texts of Saint Cyprian are too abundant to cite them all.

“…let us also arm the right hand with the spiritual sword, so that it may bravely repel the fatal sacrifices, and that, mindful of the Eucharist, the hand that receives the body of the Lord may embrace him himself — the hand that before long is to receive from the Lord the reward of heavenly crowns.”[40]

“…illustrious hands, made for nothing but divine works, resisted the sacrilegious sacrifices; mouths sanctified by heavenly food, after the body and blood of the Lord, repelled the contagion of the profane and the remnants of the idols.”[41]

“Returning from the altars of the devil, they approached the holy things of the Lord with filthy and infected hands reeking with the stench; and, belching forth almost still the deadly food of the idols, they assault the body of the Lord with jaws still exhaling their crime and reeking with fatal contagion — the divine Scripture confronting them and crying out and saying: [Lev 7:20; 1 Cor 10:21; 11:27]…”[42]

Firmilian of Caesarea (? – 268 A.D.)

“…Moreover, how great is the sin of those who are admitted, or of those who admit others, to touch the body and blood of the Lord, not having washed away their stains through the baptism of the Church nor having put away their sins, having rashly usurped communion — since it is written: Whoever shall eat the bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”[43]

Novatian (? – 258 A.D.)

In the excerpt from his writing reproduced below, he questions the absurdity of a Christian attending pagan spectacles. He finds deeply reprehensible the attitude of a Christian who dared to enter unworthy places while carrying the Eucharist.

“…daring to carry the holy thing with him into the brothel, if he could, he who, hastening to go to the spectacle, dismissed from the Lord’s sacrifice and still carrying with him, as is customary, the Eucharist, this faithless one carried the holy body of Christ amid the obscene bodies of harlots, deserving more punishment by this path than by the pleasure of the spectacle.”[44]

This is intended to be only a brief summary of what the Church taught during the first 3 centuries regarding the Eucharist. Covering the first 6 centuries would be far more extensive, and for more information one may consult volumes I and II of the work Primitive Eucharistic Texts by Jesús Solano, from the Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (BAC).

To conclude the answer to the question posed at the outset, it suffices simply to analyze the facts: If St. Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274 A.D., it is impossible to attribute to him “the invention of transubstantiation.” What St. Thomas did was develop the terminology to explain the conversion of the eucharistic bread and wine, which underlies the real presence of Christ. In this way he answers a central question in eucharistic theology: How can one clearly unite the visible signifying reality (the bread and wine) and the invisible signified reality (the body and blood of Christ)? According to the saint, both are preserved in the teaching of transubstantiation: On the one hand, the accidents of the bread and wine are the real symbols that signify the passion and resurrection of Christ — what is seen is the signifying reality. On the other hand, what is invisible to the senses, the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, serves to lead believers to the signified reality, the real presence of the person of the Savior.

By substance he understands a thing or a person examined in its intrinsic being, endowed with its own unity and consistency, abstracting from its various qualities and properties. A man, composed of many diverse substances (blood, bones, tissues…) is always a single substance. Therefore, he means that in the Eucharist there is a change of substances in the sense that the intrinsic being of the bread and wine — a metaphysical reality, not perceptible by the senses and invisible — is converted into the intrinsic being of the body and blood of Christ. The body of Christ cannot be touched or consumed in its proper species, but only in the sacramental species that conceal it from our eyes and our sensory experience.

Notes

  1. Citation taken from the website http://www.iglesiadedios-israelita.org/manual_evangelismo.htm. ↩
  2. Council of Trent, ch. IV, On Transubstantiation. http://www.mercaba.org/CONCILIOS/trento05.htm. ↩
  3. Georg Metzger, Manual of Lutheran Theology based on Luther’s Catechism, VI.d ↩
  4. Georg Metzger, Manual of Lutheran Theology based on Luther’s Catechism, VI.c: ↩
  5. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, 20, 2 / Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Padres Apostólicos, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 65, 5th ed., Madrid 1985, p. 459. ↩
  6. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 7, 3 / Ibid., p. 479. ↩
  7. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians 4 / Ibid., p. 483. ↩
  8. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7, 1 / Ibid., p. 492. ↩
  9. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, 1 / Ibid., p. 493. ↩
  10. Didaché 9, 5 / Ibid., p. 86. ↩
  11. Didaché 14 / Ibid., p. 91. ↩
  12. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66. ANF, vol. 1, pp. 185–186. ↩
  13. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, 41, 3. ANF, vol. 1, p. 215. ↩
  14. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, 116. ANF, vol. 1, p. 257. ↩
  15. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies IV,17,5 ↩
  16. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies IV,18,4 ↩
  17. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies IV,33,2 ↩
  18. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies V,2,2. Cited in Jesús Solano, Textos Eucarísticos Primitivos, vol. I, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 88, 3rd ed., Madrid 1996, pp. 77-78. ↩
  19. Tertullian, Against Marcion IV,40. Ibid., pp. 96-98. ↩
  20. Tertullian, Against Marcion V,8. Ibid., p. 99. ↩
  21. Tertullian, The Chaplet 3. Ibid., pp. 100-101. ↩
  22. Tertullian, On Idolatry 7. Ibid., pp. 101-102. ↩
  23. Tertullian, On Modesty 9. Ibid., p. 103. ↩
  24. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1, 1. Ibid., pp. 106-107. ↩
  25. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1, 19. Ibid., p. 107. ↩
  26. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4, 25. Ibid. ↩
  27. Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 23. Ibid., p. 109. ↩
  28. Hippolytus, Exegetical Fragments. Gen 38:19 (ACHELIS, 96; Arabic fragment). Ibid., p. 111 ↩
  29. Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel 4,35. Ibid., pp. 113-114 ↩
  30. Hippolytus, On the Two Robbers I, Jn 19:34. Ibid., p. 114. ↩
  31. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition (DIX; Funk, 115s; Botte, 66s). Ibid., p. 121 ↩
  32. Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, 19, 13. Ibid., p. 132. ↩
  33. Origen, Homilies on Exodus, 13, 3. Ibid., p. 127. ↩
  34. Origen, Homilies on Numbers, 7, 2. Ibid., p. 129. ↩
  35. Origen, Homilies on Ezekiel, 7, 22. Ibid. ↩
  36. Origen, Commentary Series 82. Ibid., p. 136. ↩
  37. Origen, Homilies on Psalm 37, 2, 6. Ibid., pp. 131-132. ↩
  38. Origen, Against Celsus 8, 33. Ibid., p. 140. ↩
  39. Origen, Commentary Series 85. Ibid., pp. 36-37. ↩
  40. Cyprian, Letter 58, 9. Ibid., p. 148. ↩
  41. Cyprian, On the Lapsed 2. Ibid., p. 174. ↩
  42. Cyprian, On the Lapsed 15. Ibid., p. 175. ↩
  43. Firmilian, Extracts from Letter 75, 21. Ibid., p. 185. ↩
  44. Novatian, On the Spectacles 5. Ibid., p. 186. ↩