The Eucharist of the Early Christians

Please give my review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/review/RVAPQM1KBLMHN/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
The Eucharist of the Early Christians

This is not a book of apologetics; it is a collection of scholarly essays by a collection of French liturgical historians. Each individual essay deals with the Eucharistic implications of the writings of a specific pre-Nicene Early Church Fathers. The essays deconstruct these writings in minute and interesting detail.

The writings addressed are:

The Didache – This writing is presumed to be a first century proto-catechism. The Didache offers a glimpse into liturgical practices in the first century, including worship on Sunday, confession before the liturgy and a form of liturgy that looks like the modern Mass. The liturgy re-purposed Jewish blessings. The author of this essay notes the use of the term “sacrifice” but contends that this is probably a “sacrifice of Thanksgiving” as opposed to the distinctively Christian understanding of Christ's sacrifice.

Clement of Rome – Clement's letter to the Corinthians was written in the late first century. Although the issue that Clement was writing about involved the deposition of Corinthian church leaders, Clement connects the impropriety of deposing church leaders with the hierarchy of the priests who attend to the liturgy and to the sacrifice the priesthood offers. The author of this essay notes that the Clement speaks of the “eucharist” – the noun is not used – as having replaced the sacrifices of the Old Testament. (Clement 40:1-5, 41:1-2.) Clement is nearly a proof text for doctrines of the Catholic Church, including apostolic succession (44) and the apostolic origins of the Church of Rome (6:1). Clement has no soft feelings for those who incited the revolt against the presbyters of Corinth in that Clement refers to those who arrogate to themselves a power that is not from god are evidently insane. (39: 5.) Clement spends a great deal of time on the importance of proper order (taxei) and the services/liturgy (leitourgias) to the extent of discussing the importance of following the Masters' instructions as to the celebration of the offerings. (40,41.) Clement makes the connection between the hierarchy and the exercise of “cultic functions.” (42.) “The priesthood is a special reality not possessed by those who have not received ti from transmission from the apostles or their successors.”(43:2.) Clement is an extensive appeal to tradition in the first century. (p. 31.) Clement describes the rebels in pastoral terms as sinners who may be putting themselves outside the Church. (p. 35, 58:2.) Clement relied on the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament. (p. 39.) I did not see in this essay any discussion of whether Clement considered the Eucharist to be the body of Christ, but the high status given to the sacrifice and the concomitant high status given to the priesthood is suggestive.

Ignatius of Antioch – This writing is from the early second century, around 110. Ignatius likewise emphasized the hierarchical nature of the Church, including the importance of bishops. Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians is reported by the author of this essay to be the first written evidence of Eucharist used in a technical sense. (p. 51.) The Eucharist is “an antidote preventing death.” (Eph. 20, 2.) Ignatius viewed the Eucharist as a sacrament of unity which was presented by the Bishop on a single altar. (Phil. 4.) Ignatius warned Christians to be on guard against those who would cause schism by following a line of thinking that is alien to Christianity. (p. 53.) Ignatius used the term “flesh” to refer to the Eucharist: “This eucharist is the flesh of Christ.” (p. 53.) The bishop is the center and focus of the entire “cultic life” of the Church. (p. 55.) “The Bishop holds the place of God. (Magn. 6,1; Tral. 3, 1.) The bishop is the visible image of the invisible Christ. (Eph. 1,3; See also Smyrn. 8, 2.) Ignatius condemned those who dened that the eucharist is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, the flesh that suffered for our sins, and that the Father in his goodness raised this flesh up again.” (p. 56, Smyrn. 7:1.) “The eucharist is the real flesh of Christ; echaristic flesh and historical flesh are one and the same.”(p. 57.) (This contradicts those who suggest that this idea was concocted in the 10th century.)

There is an interesting point buried in Ignatius: the eucharist acts as a source of unity because “we can share in but one eucharist: because there is only one flesh of Christ and one cup of his blood.” (p. 60.)

Justin Martyr – Justin wrote in the mid-second century in Rome. Justin referred to “eucharist” and identified deacons and ministers who presided over a eucharistic liturgy. (p. 74-75.) Justin's approach in the First Apology was “incarnational” – he agreed that the eucharist was the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus. (p. 76; First Ap. 66:2.) (Justin also mentions how similar the eucharist was to the rites of Mithras.(p. 77.)) Justin also noted that no one can share the eucharist unless they believe “our doctrines are true.” (p. 72, First Ap. 66:1.)

Irenaeus of Lyons – Irenaeus wrote in the last half of the second century. Irenaeus argued that only the Catholic Church could offer the sacrifice that pleased God. (p. 89.) The Church received the sacrifice from the aposltes and offers it throughout the world. (p. 89. Adv. Haer. 17,5.) (Irenaeus also reversed the normal viewpoint of human anthropology by seeing human beings an animated body, not an embodied spirit. (p. 93.) The eucharist was central to salvation in that faith and eucharist were inseparable and reciprocal: “Our manner of thinking is conformed to the eucharist and the eucharist conforms our manner of thinking.” (p. 95; Adv. Haer, IV, 18, 5.)

Clement of Alexandria wrote about the year 200. (p. 99.) Clement had little to say about the eucharist, but did identify a heresy, the Encratites (see also, Aquarians), who celebrated the eucharist using plain water, rather than wine. (p. 103.) Clement offers some clues about liturgical practices, but his interest seems to be to speak in analogies. The author of this essay describes Clement as doing more than anyone to Platonize Christianity. (p. 115.) The author notes that Clement regularly spoke about “spiritual food” and speculates that this might be part of Clement's scheme whereby the “simple” understood “carnally” and the enlightened took a more spiritual attitude. (p. 122.) Clement's student, Origin, apparently, held to a similar scheme. (Id.)

Tertullian is tough writer to understand. He wrote in the early third century and introduced Latin terms that became part of the Church's traditional eucharistic vocabulary. (p. 133.) Tertullian provided an insight into the liturgy and community of North African Christianity. (p. 134-135.) Modern Catholic liturgy is in line with Tertullian's descriptions. Tertullian spoke in terms of the eucharist being a “figure” of his body, but by this he meant that it was the actual body of Christ. (p. 143, Adv. Marcion, IV, 40, 3-4.) Both the historical body and the eucharistic bodies were real. (p. 144.) Tertullian's focus was on the prophetic meaning of the eucharist, which means his interest was not our interest. (p. 146-148.) However, Tertullian frequently uses earthy terms such as that our “flesh feeds on the body of blood of Christ so that the soul may grow fat on God.”(p. 148.) The eucharist is a sacrifice. (p. 148.) It is also a prayer by which Christians offer God the Christ who is present in the bread and immolated again. (p. 149 (Cf. De pudic, 9,11.)

Cyprian of Carthage wrote in the latter part of the first half of the third century. His Letter 63 is the only pre-Nicene test that deals exclusively with the eucharist. (p. 156.) He also dealt with “Aquarian” heretics who used only water in lieu of wine. (p. 159.) Cyprian also viewed the eucharist as the sacrament of unity in the form of flour and water creating a single loaf as a metaphor for the Christ and the church. (p. 163.) Cyprian viewed the eucharist as a true sacrifice. (p. 165.) Cyprian's controversies are fascinating in how they set up the importance of the eucharist. The eucharist was a sign of, and intimately connected with, the church. The controversy turned on how those who had apostatized during the Decian persecution were to be treated with respect to being allowed to obtain the eucharist. This was critical because “to receive Christ's body is to be joined to his body; to be forbidden, through excommunication, to be in communion with Christ's body in his eucharist is to be separated from the body of Christ; and to be separated from his body is to be no longer authorized to receive his body.” (p. 169.) “Body of Christ,” for Cyprian, evidently means either his eucharistic body or his ecclesial body. The two are inseparable. If we are in Christ we are in the Church and have access to the eucharist.” (p. 169.) This connection led Cyprian to pronounce that “the Lord's Passover must be eaten in a single house! The flesh of Christ which is the holy thing of the Lord, cannot be thrown outside; and for believers there is no other house than the one Church.” (p. 170, De unit. Eccl. 8.) Heretics and schismatics are outside the church and cut off from the sources of grace because they have broken away from the unity of the body of Christ. (p. 173.)

Origen wrote in the first half of the second century. Origen's focus was on making the Word of God in scripture as entitled to careful attention as the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. (p. 183.) Thus, he points out that the practice of Christians was to prevent the least fragment of the eucharist from being dropped on the floor. (Id.) Origen never challenged the reality of the eucharist; “The bread which is called the eucharist is indeed the body of Christ. (p. 184.)

The Didascalia was an anonymous text written in the second century, purporting to have been written by the apostles. The Didascalia provided an extensive liturgy, which presupposed the reality of the eucharist as the body of Christ and the sacrificial nature of the rite.

It is interesting how the multiple authors of this text, with diverse backgrounds and interests, nonetheless demonstrate a continuity of belief from the earliest period that the eucharist was the body of Christ and the liturgy of the eucharist were sacrificial. Likewise, the texts show that there was a sacrificial priesthood that defined an institutional church as the “body of Christ,” with various authors highlighting the importance of this priesthood and institution more than others. Thus, it seems that the clerics – Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Cyprian - certainly highlighted apostolic succession and the unity of the church through the eucharist. The theologians, particularly Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, were pursuing their own agendas.

Although one is attempted to look for some theological development, frankly, it doesn't seem that there was any such development. The themes of the earliest writers, e.g., Clement and Ignatius, are found in the later writers, such as Cyprian. Even the Didache, which merely gestures at a sacrificial, incarnate eucharist, cannot be said to be out of line with the rest.