O'Connor, Wyclif and the Eucharist

 Re-reading James T O'Connor's work on the Eucharist The Hidden Manna¹ he makes the intelligent notation that Wyclif was a thoroughgoing Aristotelian and thus rejected Transubstantiation. O'Connor cites Schillebeeckx in support.² This is an interesting point against those detractors who frequently state the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist being simply a false philosophical child of Aristotle apud Aquinas. O'Connor writes:

     Wyclif is defended at times on the grounds that his errors are due not so much to his theology as to his inadequate philosophy.³

 O'Connor then records footnote #62 in which he states:

     Schillebeeckx...correctly sees Wyclif as being a prisoner of rigid Aristotelian philosophy. "Faithful to the authentic, historical Aristotelianism, which could not admit any division between substance and accidents, he denied transubstantiation." Wyclif's dilemma is a good reminder of the fact that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not Aristotelian. St. Thomas had used Aristotelian categories to delineate the mystery, but only after profoundly modifying Aristotle's philosophy. [Emphasis his]

__________________

[1]. The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist (2nd ed., San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005). The relevant discussion on Wyclif can be found in pages 123-30. I consider this work among the best written from the Catholic tradition on the Eucharist, highly recommended.  

[2]. E. Schillebeeckx, The Eucharist (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), whose discussion on Wyclif can be found in pages 48-49. 

[3]. O'Connor also notes that Wycilf's error was due to his misreading of Scripture. 

 

The Fathers on the Eucharist P. 2

In our first post^[1] we surveyed some of the earliest Catholic Fathers on the meaning and understanding of the Eucharist in the early Church^[2]. Thus, the earliest Regula Fidei on the Eucharist understood it as the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. Tonight we will continue in the Patristic attestation and the understanding of the Eucharist in particular.

· St. Irenaeus writes in his great Adversus haereses on the literalness of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements of the bread and wine even pointing out the change that occurs through the Eucharistic Prayer,

"For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation from God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity" (Ibid. 4, 18, 4).

And again,

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh in increased and supported" (Ibid. 5, 2, 2).

Tertullian could not be clearer when he refutes Marcion's misunderstanding of the Eucharist,

"Having taken bread and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own Body by saying, "This is My Body" - that is, the "figure of My Body." A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was in truth a body...Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jermemias: "They have devised against Me, saying, 'Come, let us throw wood unto his bread'" - the cross, of course, upon His Body." (Adversus Marcionem. 4, 40, 3).

St. Cyprian is in agreement with the Catholic understanding,

"Also in the priest Melchisedech we see the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of the Lord prefigured...And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when He offered sacrifice to God the Father, offered the very same which Melchisedech had offered, namely bread and wine, which is in fact His Body and Blood." (Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Cecil. 63. 4).

So real is the presence of Christ in the elements that Origen warns,

"You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence." (In Exodum homiliae. 13, 3),

And in another place Origen states,

"Formerly, in an obscure way, there was mana for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the Flesh of the Word of God, as He Himself says; "My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly drink (John 6:56)." (In Numeros homiliae. 7, 2).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem exclaims,

"Do not therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but - be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worth of the Body and Blood of Christ." (Catecheses. 22, 6).

Aphraates the Persian,

"But he ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His blood as drink." (Demonstrationes. 12, 6).

St. Ephraim the Syrian,

"Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and he blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit...He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand. He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which my Word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called my Body, that it is needed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands...But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread...if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body." (Sermones. 4, 4).

One of the Cappadocian Fathers - St. Gregory of Nyssa states,

"Rightly, then do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh. From the same cause, therefore, by which the bread that was made over into that Body is made to change into divine strength, a similar result now takes place...the bread, as the Apostle says, "is consecrated by God's word and by prayer" (1 Tim 4:5)." (Oratio catechetica magna. 37).

Epiphanius of Salamis records,

"We see that the Savior took something in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said; "This is really Me."...and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior." (Ancoratus. 57).

Theodore of Mopsuestia,

"He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body and My Blood," (Matt 26:26, 28) teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood." (Commentarii in Matthaeum. ad loc).

St. Athanasius,

"So long as the prayres of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ...This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been set forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus is His Body confected." (Sermo ad nuper baptizatos).

St. Hilary of Poitiers,

"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we sould be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: "My Flesh is truly Food, and my Blood is truly Drink. He that eats my Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him." As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt." (De Trinitate. 8, 14).

Hence we see as the centuries pass the historical Christian understanding of the Eucharist remains like all other Catholic dogma, the same. These bishops and theologians stood fast in unison on the apostolic understanding of the Eucharist against the heretics and schismatics.

___________________

[End Notes.]

[1]. Which can be found here - http://regulafide.blogspot.com/search/label/On%20the%20Holy%20Eucharist

[2]. Including St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius and even a cry of anguish by Luther against those who reject a literal understanding of the Eucharist.

Feast of Corpus Christi.

Today (the Sunday after Trinity celebration) we celebrate the Feast of Corpus Christi 1. The cynosure of the feast is the miracle that occurs in the Eucharist, when the elements of the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated (changed) to the Body and Blood of our only Savior and Redeemer, He who incarnated Himself as man to die and make salvation possible for Jew and Gentile alike, Christ Jesus our Lord.

Much Ink has been spilled over the meaning and intent of the word transubstantiated and the philosophical underpinnings of Aristotle to explain the nuance between what is actually changed and what remains in the miracle 2. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, St. Aquinas did not use Aristotelian philosophy to prove that the Eucharist could be true, but rather, used Aristotelian terminology to help explain concepts that were already well established in the living tradition of the church, namely the regula fidei. Let me give a few examples of the teachings of the earliest of the Catholic fathers. St. Justin the blessed Martyr who was beheaded for these Christian doctrines records concerning the Eucharist,

"We do not recieve these as common bread or common drink. But just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the Eucaharistic prayer from Him (that food which by change nourishes our flesh and blood) is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus" 3.

Thus in St. Justin we see that the early Christians were handed down from the apostles themselves "...we have been taught" that the Eucharistic Bread and Blood were not to be considered "common bread or common drink"4 but corollary to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, so also the elements go through a form of incarnation themselves - through the prayer of consecration.

This view of the Eucharist is continued in early attestation, St. Ignatius on his way to be martyred by the teeth of wild animals has no time to equivocate,

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible" 5.

Not everyday bread and wine is what the bishop in chains longed for, but the very Bread of God, the very Flesh of Jesus Christ. Understanding this Catholic interpretation is paramount for St. Ignatius, dissenting views should be shunned at all costs,

"Do not err, my brthren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist...for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" 6.

The patristic tradition can be traced down the centuries and every orthodox father is in accord with this understanding of the Eucharist. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the regula fidei concerning this sacrament was rejected. But what was placed then as the "ancient correct view"? A unified, concrete theory of the Eucharist that no doubt the "Romanists" have bumbled as well?7 No, as any Protestant history will note, the debate among the reformers themselves, centering around the Eucharist proved to be the straw that broke the unifying camels back 8.

Luther especially felt the weight of the tradition behind the Catholic Eucharist and could not understand why the other reformers could not just submit on this point. It was as if, to everyman present at the Colloquy there was a different view on the Eucharist, fighting, bickering, arms flapping they could not agree among themselves on principle 9. Thus Luther cried out,

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” 10

Of course, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, Baptists, Non-Denominationalists, would disagree with the Luther...

____________________

1. The feast was officially established in 1215 A.D.

2. It was the great St. Thomas Aquinas who set down the change in the elements in the Eucharist as a change in the substance of the elements while the outward appearance (accidents) remain the same.

3. (Apologia prima pro Christianis. 66, 2).

4. So much for all the views that hold the elements of the Eucharist to be nothing more than bread and wine and treat the whole event as a memorial (Zwingli and company). This view of the holy Eucharist has caused a practical degradation of the sacrament,. Grape juice and crackers are now ok to use (since the so-called Lord's Supper signifies nothing more than a memorial service). Instead of every Sunday (the practice of the early Church) the Lords Supper is now practiced once a month, and in some churches a few times a year. The logical conclusion of this type of thinking is to question why bother performing this event at all? Hence, those as the Quakers and the Jehovah's Witnesses which do away with the blessed sacrament altogather. St. Ignatius warns us in regards to this, "They (the schismatics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes...It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them, neither in public nor in private" (Epistula ad Smyrnaeos. 7, 1-2).

5. (Epistula ad Romanos. 7, 3).

6. (Epistula ad Philadelphenes. 3, 3; 4, 1).

7. In the scientific field, whenever an established position is challenged - a working hypothesis is put in it's place, and after meticulous peer review (and only the large majority of the specialists are convinced) can the new theory be universally accepted. Is this what happened with the Protestant challenge to the Catholic Eucharist? Far from it.

8. As seen especially at the Colloquy of Marburg.

9. This is what we call the practical effects of the autonomous hermeneutic. No longer anchored in tradition, men fall into the trap of hermeneutic anarchy.

10. (Luther’s Collected Works. V7, 391).

R.E. Aguirre, Anno Domini MMVIII