The Eucharist
Leugen Kringledorf | April 8th, 2023
It will be shocking to no one that Rome and non-Roman Catholics have a very different outlook when it comes to the Eucharist. Over the last two thousand years, this seemingly simple subject has blossomed into full fledge schisms amongst Christians. It is rather ironic something intended to make Christians come together has been nothing but a wedge to divide them apart. When discussions arise over this topic, all the dogs do is bark. There is no attempt to understand; there is only static noise that has echoed for a millennium.
That being said, Roman Catholic apologists make sweeping claims about the consensus of the early Church on these topics. For instance, in Jimmy Akin’s The Fathers Know Best, when speaking about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Akin writes,
“The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is present… under the appearances of bread and wine. This teaching is based on a variety of Scriptural passages… The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally.”1
On the complete opposite side, Baptist congregations consider the Lord’s Supper as a "symbolic act of obedience" without considering the Eucharist a sacrament of the Church.2
In either case, both Akin and Baptists are somewhat correct. While certainly some members of the early Church appear to agree with Roman Catholic opinion, to say that Roman Catholic opinion was unanimous is dishonest. And while Communion is undoubtedly symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice for us, to say there is no spiritual connection within the Eucharist is also ignorant of scripture and Church teaching throughout the centuries.
The Eucharist
When a non-Roman Catholic attends mass for the first time, they will undoubtedly notice a strange action by the body of believers. Every time someone leaves or enters a pew, or whenever someone approaches the pulpit, they kneel. Without any context, the action seems strange, but this action highlights the major Roman Catholic belief about the Eucharist: the real presence of Jesus.
Roman Catholics do not believe that the Lord’s Supper is merely a symbol for Jesus’ body and blood, nor do they believe that the Eucharist is merely a spiritual manifestation of our Lord. To them, upon consecration, the bread and wine cease and are replaced by the actual body and blood of Jesus. This is done through a process known as “transubstantiation.” Douglas Beaumont does an excellent job explaining what this term means.
“The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that the bread and wine, at the moment of consecration during Holy Mass, actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The change, however, is not detectable by the senses… [T]ransubstantiation indicates the change that the elements of Communion undergo when they change from bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This change is utterly unique because this substantial change occurs without any accidental change. With the exception of some remarkable Eucharistic miracles, transubstantiation does not result in a change that is empirically detectable or scientifically provable.”3
In simpler terms, Rome has defined the difference between the “substance” of an object and its “accidents.” Philosophically speaking, the “substance” refers “to what a thing is at its core, while ‘accidents’ are modifications of that substance.”4 For example if an aluminum bottle was originally colored red but became blue, the change would be an accidental change as the bottle itself has not stopped being. However, if that bottle was recycled and made into another object, then a substantial change has occurred. In essence, a change of character is an accidental change while a change of form or substance is a substantial change.
Rome believes that because accidental and substantial changes are separate, an accidental change is not necessarily accompanied by a substantial change and vice versa. This is how Roman Catholics explain the change of the Eucharist.
“[I]t has always been the conviction of the Church of God… that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”5
When the Eucharistic elements are consecrated, they become the actual flesh and blood of Christ, but because no accidental change has occurred, the flesh and blood merely appear like bread and wine. Because the actual body and blood of the Lord are thought to be in the sanctuary, Roman Catholics desiring to show honor and respect to Christ bow or kneel in a process known as “genuflection.”6
Given Roman Catholic beliefs, the action of genuflection during service is certainly an admirable and respectable practice. In seeking to humble themselves before the Lord as He humbled Himself on the cross, Roman Catholics lower themselves so that He who is worthy is raised before them. But while the honor in the practice is certainly there, it does not speak to the validity of Roman Catholic beliefs considering the Eucharist. Rome claims that their opinion is the same as it has always been. To Rome, the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is considered an intrinsic part of Church doctrine, but… is it really? Has the Church always been consistent?
Funnily enough, many Roman Catholic apologists will reference J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines to support their opinion that the early Church was undivided when it came to the real presence of Christ. At the start of his chapter on the Eucharistic presence, Kelly writes,
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour's body and blood.”8
And to some degree, Kelly would be correct. Some of the earliest writings we have from Justin, Ignatius, and Irenaeus do appear to support the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. That being said, there are many writings from the late second, third, and fourth century, which indicate a dissenting opinion against the existence of Christ in the bread and wine. The existence of these opposing opinions less than 50 years after the writings of Justin and at the same time as Irenaeus suggests that any unanimous belief in the real presence is more a product of limited Church authorship than any real truth.
The reality is there is no sound consensus in the early Church on the real presence. In actuality, there were three major views: “the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen.”9 To further complicate matters, often when an author is found to express one view, he can be found somewhere else seeming to state the opposite. But in order to gain a better picture of the early Church’s Eucharistic beliefs, let us examine their writings.
The Eucharist: The Mystic View
The mystic view contains the consideration of the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus are typically said to hold this view. Justin seems to be one of the first to postulate a change to the elements of the Eucharist as he writes,
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these… the food that has been made into the Eucharist by the eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”10
Likewise, Irenaeus provides a similar outlook on the elements of the Eucharist, writing,
“When the mixed cup… and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh that is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”11
Furthermore, it appears the thoughts of Justin and Irenaeus were carried on by third and fourth century Christians such as Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem and Gaudentius of Brescia as illustrated in the following excerpts:
“Now our Lord has not left the minds of His faithful followers in doubt, but has explained the manner in which His nature operates, saying, That they may be one, as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in one. Now I ask those who bring forward a unity of will between Father and Son, whether Christ is in us today through verity of nature or through agreement of will. For if in truth the Word has been made flesh and we in very truth receive the Word made flesh as food from the Lord, are we not bound to believe that He abides in us naturally, Who, born as a man, has assumed the nature of our flesh now inseparable from Himself, and has conjoined the nature of His own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament by which His flesh is communicated to us?”12
“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him… As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true?”13
“Our bodies, having received poison, need an Antidote; and only by eating and drinking can it enter. One Body, the receptacle of Deity, is this Antidote, thus received. But how can it enter whole into each one of the Faithful? This needs an illustration. Water gives its own body to a skin-bottle. So nourishment (bread and wine) by becoming flesh and blood gives bulk to the human frame: the nourishment is the body. Just as in the case of other men, our Saviour's nourishment (bread and wine) was His Body; but these, nourishment and Body, were in Him changed into the Body of God by the Word indwelling. So now repeatedly the bread and wine, sanctified by the Word (the sacred Benediction), is at the same time changed into the Body of that Word; and this Flesh is disseminated among all the Faithful.”14
“One man has died for all, and now in every church in the mystery of bread and wine he heals those for whom he is offered in sacrifice, giving life to those who believe and holiness to those who consecrate the offering. This is the flesh of the Lamb; this is his blood… Creator and Lord of all things, whatever their nature, he brought forth bread from the earth and changed it into his own body. Not only had he the power to do this, but he had promised it; and, as he had changed water into wine, he also changed wine into his own blood.”15
It is clear from these few authors that the mystic view was indeed prolific during the second, third, and fourth centuries. And from these given remarks, it would seem these authors were believers in transubstantiation. Unfortunately, it is not easy to ascribe the modern Roman Catholic opinion of the Eucharist to these early Christians, for some of these authors contradict themselves in other writings. Take, for instance, the writings of Gaudentius. While he said that the Lord brought forth bread and changed it into His own body, he also called “the supper a figure of the passion of Christ, and the bread the figure (figura) of the body of Christ.”16,17 Even writers like Irenaeus with his literal language called elsewhere “the bread and wine, after consecration, ‘antitypes’, implying the continued distinction of their substance from the body and blood of Christ.”18
To further complicate things, one of the most adamant writers about the mystic view is Cyril of Jerusalem, and while he plainly taught a “supernatural connection between the body of Christ and the elements”, his teachings are not necessarily indicative of transubstantiation.19 For, in support of the change in the Eucharist, “Cyril refers at one time to the wedding feast at Cana, which indicates, the Roman theory of change of substance; but at another to the consecration of the chrism, wherein the substance is unchanged.” Cyril was evidently “not clear and consistent with himself” and his opinion was probably that “the eucharistic elements lost by consecration not so much their earthly substance as their earthly purpose.”20
So, it is a dishonest scheme to attribute concretely the modern convention of transubstantiation to these early Christians. While certainly their language may have hinted at it, the only clear conclusion is that the Church undoubtedly held that the Eucharist is “the holiest mystery of the Christian worship, and accordingly celebrated it with the deepest devotion….”21
The Eucharist: The Symbolic and Spiritualistic Views
If it seems strange that both the symbolic and spiritualistic views are considered within the same section, this comes out of necessity due to the nature of the language used by early Christians. In some instances, the opinion of a prominent writer may be ascertained with high confidence, but in others, the line is less clear.
The symbolical view maintains that the physical flesh and blood of Christ are not present in the Eucharist. Tertullian appears to be the first major author to participate in the symbolical view, and one of the first authors to provide an opinion counter to the mystic view. For instance, in his commentary on John 6, Tertullian states,
“If [Christ] says that ‘the flesh profits nothing,’ then the meaning must take direction from the context of that remark. For seeing that they regarded his speech as hard and unbearable, as though he had really prescribed his flesh for them to eat [vv. 54-58], since his purpose was to assign the establishment of salvation to the Spirit, he first said, ‘It is the spirit that gives life,’ and only then added, ‘the flesh profits nothing’- toward the giving of life, of course. He also proceeds to state how he wishes ‘the Spirit’ to be understood. ‘The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’… And so, when establishing his teaching as the Life-giver (because the Word is spirit and life), he also said that it is his flesh, because the Word also was made flesh. We ought therefore to desire him in order that we may have life. We ought to devour him with the ear, and to ruminate on him with the mind and to digest him by faith.”20
In Tertullian’s opinion, the controversial words of Christ in John 6 indicate His denial of consuming His actual flesh. To Tertullian, Christ was instructing us to take part in His Spirit, which is why we “ought to devour him with the ear, and to ruminate on him with the mind and to digest him by faith.”21
Furthermore, Tertullian in his writings against Marcion speaks of the bread and wine of the Eucharist as the figure of Christ’s body and blood. He writes,
“When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the Passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given 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 were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure… He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh… In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood…Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.”22
Thus, the bread and the wine serve as figures of Christ’s real body and blood. To support this assertion, Tertullian references Old Testament prophecies that show the use of bread and wine as figures of Christ’s body and blood. Therefore, in the eyes of Tertullian, the words of Christ during the Lord’s Supper are metaphorical of the true body and blood of Jesus.
Cyprian of Carthage is also attributed with being a proponent of the symbolical view. While at times Cyprian seems literal in his explanations, he expresses more consistently a symbolical association of the bread and wine with Christ’s body and blood. Cyprian discussed at length how the figures of bread and wine were used in the Old Testament to point to the crucifixion of Jesus as seen in the following excerpts:
“For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, … that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord.”23
“Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord… In Genesis, therefore, that the benediction, in respect of Abraham by Melchizedek the priest, might be duly celebrated, the figure of Christ's sacrifice precedes, namely, as ordained in bread and wine; which thing the Lord, completing and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and so He who is the fullness of truth fulfilled the truth of the image prefigured.”24
Cyprian’s figurative association of the Eucharist with Christ’s body and blood, however, extends past the Old Testament. When marveling at how others were instituting water in place of wine for the Eucharist, Cyprian expressed that the “water… alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ.”25 Therefore, from both Cyprian and Tertullian we receive analogous associations of the Lord’s Supper with figures.
And just as the mystic view was echoed throughout the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, the symbolical view too found its home in later centuries of antiquity. The church historian Eusebius referred in length to the bread and wine as symbols, writing,
“We have received through Christ’s mystic dispensation the symbols that are true, and archetypal of the images that preceded them’… For Christ offered to the Father ‘a wonderful sacrifice and unique victim’… and ‘delivered us a memory… to offer continually to God in place of a sacrifice….”26, 27
Other writers such as Basil of Caesarea and Macarius the Elder express distinct opinions from the mystic view in support of the symbolical. Basil wrote, “We eat the flesh of Christ… and drink His blood, if we, through His incarnation and human life, become partakers of the Logos and of wisdom”28 and Macarius called the bread and wine “the antitype of the body and blood of Christ….”29
But just like the mystic view, writers at times tend to vary in their exact stance on the reality of the elements. Oftentimes, these writers express a more spiritual view of the Eucharistic, in that, the bread and wine are the spiritual body and blood of Christ and not the physical. The best example of this comes from Augustine of Hippo.
Roman Catholic apologists tend to designate Augustine as a proponent of the mystic view and a supporter of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Often, one of Augustine’s sermons is quoted in which he says that “The bread you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”30
Had this been the only quote provided by Augustine, then it might be possible to interpret Augustine’s thoughts as supportive of the mystic view. However, this single quote is hardly capable of keeping in mind the other thoughts of Augustine. Elsewhere, Augustine writes of how at the Lord’s Supper, Christ “committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood.”31 Not only this, but Augustine “maintains the figurative character of the words of institution, and of the discourse of Jesus… in the sixth chapter of John; with Tertullian, he calls the bread and wine ‘figurae’ or ‘signa corporis et sanguinis Christi’ (but certainly not mere figures), and insists on a distinction between ‘that which is visibly received in the sacrament, and that which is spiritually eaten and drunk,’ or between a carnal, visible manducation of the sacrament, and a spiritual eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his blood.”32
Many seem to hold a similar spiritual understanding of the Eucharist like Augustine. The writings of Theodoret, for example, seem to define the very basis of a spiritual connection. In his dialogue The Immutable, Theodoret writes,
“… [I]n the giving of the mysteries He called the bread, body, and what had been mixed, blood… Yet naturally the body would properly be called body, and the blood, blood… But our Saviour changed the names, and to His body gave the name of the symbol and to the symbol that of his body. So, after calling himself a vine, He spoke of the symbol as blood.”33
Theodoret first establishes the elements of the Eucharist as clear symbols indicative of the body and blood of our Savior. Continuing further in the dialogue, Theodoret explains the reason for the change of name.
“To them that are initiated in divine things the intention is plain. For he wished the partakers in the divine mysteries not to give heed to the nature of the visible objects, but, by means of the variation of the names, to believe the change wrought of grace. For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace.”34
According to Theodoret, the attribution of bread and wine with the body and blood is not because of an inherent change to the Eucharist in terms of the elements’ constitution but rather due to the imbuing of grace in the sacrament. The addition of grace implies a spiritual mystery to the Lord’s Supper of which we partake when consuming the elements.
Furthermore, in his second dialogue, Theodoret is direct in explaining the reality of the Eucharist. Take the following excerpt:
“Orth.— Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols?
Eran.— Of the body and blood of the Lord.
…
Orth.— Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects.
…
Eran.— And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.— Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Eran.— And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?
Orth.— I do.
Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.
Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.”35
After consecration then, the Eucharist has not been transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ. The elements of the Lord’s Supper are merely “regarded” and “worshipped” as if they were the body and blood of Christ. In reality, the elements “remain in their former substance and form” and “are not deprived of their own nature.”36
The true importance of Theodoret’s dialogues comes from his own explanation as to the purpose of his dialogues. He writes,
“Some men, distinguished neither by family nor education, and without any of the honorable notoriety that comes of an upright life, are ambitious of achieving fame by wicked ways… The same line of conduct is pursued by many now, who after turning their backs on the honorable glory of virtue on account of the toil to be undergone ere it be won, purchase to themselves the notoriety that comes of shame and disgrace. For through eagerness to pose as champions of new doctrines they pick up and get together the impiety of many heresies and compile this heresy of death. Now I will endeavor briefly to dispute with them, with the double object of curing them, if I can, of their unsoundness, and of giving a word of warning to the whole… After these three disputations we will… [make] it perfectly plain that the apostles’ doctrine is preserved by us.”37
Theodoret claims that the explanations in his writings should be regarded as the preserved doctrine of the Apostles. If Theodoret’s writings are true, they provide another interpretation of the writings attributed to the mystic view. The mystic authors’ words may be regarded as believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but rather in the real spiritual grace contained within it.
Interestingly, the viewpoint of Theodoret appears to be shared with Pope Gelasius some 50 years after the death of Theodoret. Gelasius wrote,
“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”38
The explanation in this quote is nearly identical to the explanations provided by Theodoret. The elements maintain their “substance or nature” and “the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”39, 40
All this being said, the point is that the writings of early Christians are hardly unanimous when it comes to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And even if some of the early authors were proponents of the mystic view, it is both disingenuous and underhanded to assign to them modern institutions such as transubstantiation. The same is true of the purely symbolical view. While it is true that Communion is an act of remembrance with early Christians writing oft of this perspective, it is inconceivable that the Church has not held a spiritualistic association with the Eucharist. In any case, it is safer to regard to the Eucharist as a divine mystery, in which we are honored to partake.
Sources
1 The Fathers Know Best. pg. 292. 2010. Akin, Jimmy.
2 Gentry, Peter. "Baptist Faith and Message: Article 7b: The Lord's Supper." Baptist Press, 2002. Accessed 8 April 2023.
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/baptist-faith-and-message-article-7b-the-lords-supper/
3 Beaumont, Douglas M. “Ditch Transubstantiation, and You Ditch God.” Catholic Answers. Accessed 22 Aug. 2022, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-transubstantiation-unbelievable
4 Beaumont, Douglas M. “Ditch Transubstantiation, and You Ditch God.” Catholic Answers. Accessed 22 Aug. 2022, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-transubstantiation-unbelievable
5 Cate. 1376
6 Bergh, Frederick Thomas. "Genuflexion." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 14 Oct. 2022, http://newadvent.org/cathen/06423a.html.
7 Cate. 1378
8 Early Christian Doctrines. 440, Fourth Edition. 1968.Kelly, J.N.D.
9 History of the Christian Church, Volume III. 289-290. 1882. Philip Schaff.
10 First Apology 66. Justin Martyr.
11 Against Heresies. 4:33:2. Irenaeus of Lyons.
12 De Trinit. VIII. 13. Hilary of Poitiers.
13 Ibid. 14.
14 The Great Catechism, XXXVII. From A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 5. 1917. Translated by William Moore and Henry Austin Wilson. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace.
15 Sermon 2. Gaudentius of Brescia. From the Office of Readings. Universalis.
16 History of the Christian Church, Volume III. 289-290. 1882. Philip Schaff. Footnote 1009.
17 An interesting analysis of this comes from Leopold Rueckert’s das Abendmahl. He says, “[Gaudentius] is now certainly not a Symboliser, for to turn the bread man baked into a symbol requires his creative activity; but [Gaudentius] does not seem to be a Dualist either, because the transformation of water does not fit as an example. Here one can only say that Gaudentius thinks of the transformation of the presented materials through Christ’s creative powers. If we consider this point to be clear and firm, then everything else must be interpreted accordingly or it must be admitted that Gaudentius himself is not yet quite clear and firm.”
18 History of the Christian Church, Volume II. 156. 1882. Philip Schaff.
19History of the Christian Church, Volume III. 289-290. 1882. Philip Schaff. Footnote 1009.
20 Ibid.
21 History of the Christian Church, Volume II. 156. 1882. Philip Schaff.
22 Against Marcion. Book IV, Sec. 40. Tertullian
23 Epistle 62. Cyprian of Carthage.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 The Proof of the Gospel Being The Demonstration Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea, Volume I. XXXI. W. J. Ferrar.
27 Eusebius also distinctly says that the Eucharist is “celebrated on a table by means of the symbols of His Body and His saving Blood.”
28 History of the Christian Church, Volume III. 289-290. 1882. Philip Schaff.
29 Ibid.
30 Sermons 227. Augustine of Hippo.
31 Exposition on Psalm 3. Verse 1. Augustine of Hippo.
32History of the Christian Church, Volume III. 289-290. 1882. Philip Schaff.
33 Dialogue I—The Immutable. Theodoret of Cyrus.
34 Dialogue 1—The Immutable. Theodoret of Cyrus.
35 Dialogue 2—The Unconfounded. Theodoret of Cyrus.
36 Ibid.
37 Dialogues—Prologue. Theodoret of Cyrus.
38 De duabus naturis in Christo Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium. Pope Gelasius I.
39 Ibid.
40 There are many Roman apologists that will argue that in Gelasius’ words, it is “assumed wrongly that by the words ‘nature’ and ‘substance’ the Fathers cited, writing centuries before heresies had made accurate definition and precise terminology necessary, intended to mean what the Tridentine Fathers meant by them” (The Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. American Ecclesiastical Review. 1903. W.R. Carson). To these critics, I would implore them to read through the entirety of Dialogue I—The Immutable by Theodoret. This document written more than 50 years before Pope Gelasius became Pope shows distinctly the well-thought philosophical and theological frameworks present during the 5th century. To say that concepts such as “nature” and “substance” were not adequately defined until the Council of Trent is arrogant and insulting to the great minds that came before.