Reddit and the Church Fathers

Non-Fiction

Dec 9

A Response to u/Otnerio on the Church Fathers’ Eucharist Denials

Note: All Bible verses are from the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. All views expressed herein are the author’s own.

If you missed my previous post, I highly recommend that you go back and read that one before starting with this one, if for no other reason that I will be glossing over some things previously discussed. This is Part II of a series on some Protestant objections to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Today we will be looking at a Reddit post from a couple years back entitled “Early Church Fathers, prior to Nicaea, did not believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist” on r/DebateACatholic, originally posted by u/Otnerio. Now this will probably be my shortest of these three articles (relatively speaking), simply because some of the discussion on this post in the comments section start to get a bit outside of my wheelhouse, entering some of the finer semantic points of high theology which I am not as proficient with. The last thing I want to go and do is mouth off on things with which I’m not as familiar, thus bringing down both the quality of the response and also doing a disservice to those who are infinitely more qualified to offer their opinions.

Another tricky bit about this post is that the author admits that the title itself is a bit imprecise, that it should read “substantial presence” instead of “physical presence” due to confusion which it seemed to cause in the comments. I think many in the comments offer interesting takes and opinions as to why the claims of this author do not prove the case he is attempting (that the Catholic doctrine, as defined by the Council of Trent in 1551, was not taught by the early church fathers), so I would high recommend sifting through some of those in order to understand the back-and-forth. Nevertheless, I’ve committed myself to offering my own thoughts on this post, so let’s see what we can discover. Does Otnerio prove that these Church Fathers denied the Catholic understanding?

To begin with, let’s have a few words about ecumenical councils. The topic itself deserves its own article, but for now let’s briefly explain what they are, what they do, and what they do not do. According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, ecumenical councils are “legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of church doctrine and discipline.” What that means in simple terms is that a council is a gathering of Church leadership during times when certain doctrines are under dispute, with the purpose of settling said questions and declaring what the definitive Christian teaching on this matter is, using the Catholic Church’s Magisterium, or teaching authority. There have been 21 ecumenical councils in the history of the Catholic Church (22, if we include the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. More on this in a moment.) with the latest council being the Second Vatican Council, held between 1962 and 1965 in Rome.

An ecumenical council does not create new doctrine. It is outside of the scope of anyone – be it layman, priest, bishop, council, or pope – to create Christine doctrine out of thin air. Everything defined in an ecumenical council goes back to the Bible and Sacred Tradition. The normal purpose of councils is to declare on matters which are of controversy, settling the question once and for all. Take for example the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which was called by the Apostles to settle the Judaizers controversy. The Judaizers were baptized Christians who believed that one needed to be circumcised and adhere to the law of Moses in order to be saved, in addition to the precepts of Christ. Acts 15:6-7 tell us that much debate happened on this issue, before St. Peter declares that the Gentiles should not have to participate in the Law of Moses in order to become Christians, closing the issue and settling the matter. This shows how a council can definitively settle a doctrinal issue, clarifying and defining things which up until that point may have been understood practice, but not without its own controversy. Over the next two thousand years 21 more of these councils were convened, not to create doctrine, but to settle matters which arose as time went on. Another example is the Council of Nicaea in 325, which defined the doctrine of the Trinity (one God, three Persons). During this time the followers of an Alexandrian priest named Arius, began to believe that Christ was not divine and was instead merely a highly-created being. This, of course goes against one of the foundational teachings of Christianity, namely that Christ is to be worshipped as God since He was the Incarnate Lord, sparking the need for a specific definition to be given to the historical teaching. Notice that the council didn’t create the doctrine (Christians believed this since the pages of the New Testament) they simply gave it a name and defined it specifically to quell confusion. Things were similar with the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) which Otnerio brings up. It didn’t create this new doctrine, but simply put a definition on one which had been believed since the beginning, in light of the Protestant Reformation and the controversies surrounding Catholic teachings which it spawned.

Having taken that extended detour, let’s return to the Reddit post. The user Otnerio’s issue arises with the Council of Trent’s definition of the “substantial presence” (emphasis Otnerio):

If any one shall deny, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are verily, really, and substantially contained the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but shall say that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon I)

Otnerio doesn’t believe that the Early Church Fathers held to this belief. To argue this, he brings up three Church Fathers: St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Irenaeus (the latter two you may recall from yesterday’s article). There are five further snippets which Otnerio included, however these are ones he added later from a different user in the comments, which I will briefly tackle at the end. But let’s first focus on the original three.

First up is St. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 – 215). He was an early teacher and theologian from the aforementioned city, teaching at the catechetical school of Alexandria with pupils such as Origen. Not a whole lot is known about Clement’s life beyond his work and only a bit of his writing still exists. The snippet from the post comes from Clement’s work The Pedagogue, or The Instructor (emphasis Otnerio):

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. [...] Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk.' (The Instructor, Book I, Chapter 6)

Now, at first glance, it does indeed seem that Clement is advocating for a metaphorical interpretation to Our Lord’s words in John 6, thus suggesting that this father may not believe in the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence. I’m going to be perfectly honest with this one, I don’t know enough about Clement’s writings or theology to have a complete response, so I can’t say I’m satisfied that I’ve dispelled this one. However, what I will say is that I believe this quote is not so simple as we may make it out to be. In context, this quote appears in the middle of Book 1, Chapter 6 of one of Clement’s treatises, entitled The Pedagogue (Also called The Instructor).

In this treatise, Clement is explaining what a Christian instructor (perhaps a priest or spiritual director of sorts) looks like, and how they are meant to instruct their flock. Chapter 6 is a rather lengthy chapter which deals with the question of what it means to be called a “child of God” and how being a child of God may contrast with being “childish” in a fleshly sense, i.e. being uneducated or acting rashly when prudence is warranted. The text quickly becomes a highly figurative discussion about the relationship between milk and blood as food and life, reflecting a bit of the science of the day as a way to understand how we are nourished by the truth. As I alluded to, it’s a fairly long and confusing bit of literature, which left me more than a bit confounded even after reading it, trying to understand exactly what Clement desires to say. One thing I can say is that he doesn’t seem (at least to my limited understanding) to be trying to make a pronouncement on the teaching of the Real Presence per-se, but instead using John 6 to further his allegorical explanation of food and drink, milk and blood. Indeed, to further complicate matters, if we jump ahead in Clement’s work to Chapter 2 of Book II, he makes the following statement (emphasis mine):

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.
And the mixture of both — of the water and of the Word — is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word. (The Instructor, Book II, Chapter 2)

This understanding seems much more in-line with Catholic teaching than the previous passage, yet both come from the same writer and same work. So, what do we make of this? Well, I wouldn’t feel comfortable making a definitive statement on Clement without more understanding, but Book I, Chapter 6 is a very metaphorical chapter when it comes to its language, bringing me to presume that trying to extrapolate a pure Eucharistic theology may not be as helpful in this case. In addition to this, Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer makes the point that Book II, Chapter 2 is entitled “On Drinking”, and offers a warning on the part of Clement against wanton drunkenness, and to shy away from wine as much as possible. However, he begins with the above quotations, suggesting that he believes the Eucharistic wine isn’t the same as natural wine, alluding to a further understanding in the Real Presence, contrasting that to real wine which he deems dangerous.

Where does that leave us with Clement of Alexandria? Does he deny the Real Presence? I’d say it’s inconclusive. Chapter 6 may suggest so, but it also suggests a non-literal reading of the passages to advocate a point about the Word, Truth, milk, and blood. It isn’t unheard of for scriptural verses to have a literal and non-literal sense to them (See an article by Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers on this point), thus that may be what we are encountering here. Granting, however, that Clement might indeed be advocating for a purely metaphorical understanding of John 6 (which, again, I am not sold on), that would be one Father in the anti-Real Presence camp. This would hardly be damning, given the total number of figures we are talking about.

Having said all of this on St. Clement of Alexandria, let’s take our next two fathers in one go. Both are familiar to those of you who have read my previous article responding to Nathan Busenitz. They are St. Irenaeus of Lyon and Tertullian. Here are the quotes (emphasis Otnerio):

'He says, it is true, that “the flesh profits nothing;” John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”' (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37)
For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]? (St. Irenaeus, Fragment 13)

I think we can discount that the Tertullian passage is going against the teaching of the Real Presence by referring back to some of what we discussed in the previous article. Tertullian raises the point that those who were present for the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 thought it a hard teaching because they believed that Christ was literally telling them to eat his physical flesh (i.e. cut his arm off and eat it) which they found repulsive.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; (John 6:52-54)
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60)

But of course this is not what Christ meant, nor is this what the Church means when we talk about Real Presence. It was a common belief from the pagans and Gnostics, however, which is why the Fathers had to dispel this erroneous belief. The Roman pagans believed the Christians cannibals because of the way they talked about eating Body and Blood, missing the fact that this was communicated not with real, actual, physical limbs, but instead under the appearances of bread and wine. For the second boldened part of Tertullian’s passage about understanding this by spirit, I would simply refer you to the previous article about why spiritual things don’t simply mean “invisible” or “not literal”.

For Irenaeus, the case is much simpler. Since this quote comes from a fragment of his writing (the provided snippet is actually all that still exists of the cited source) it’s hard to give the full context, however it is clear from reading that Irenaeus is commenting on the Greeks (Romans) having arrested slaves of Christian catechumens in order to find out what their masters are up to. The slaves, knowing nothing (due to Christianity’s place as a marginalized religion in Rome during this period, outsiders knew little about what happened in their ceremonies), can only say that they’ve heard it said that Christians have this belief in eating flesh. Naturally the Romans misinterpret it much like the Jews in John 6, thinking the Christians cannibals. Taking this information, the Romans sought to use this accusation while torturing the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina. It is very clear that this has nothing to do with disproving the Real Presence, and even serves as a testament to how prominent this talk of “eating Christ’s flesh” was in the early church, that even outsiders heard it, albeit misinterpreting it.

Otnerio provides several other quotations which a different user had suggested to him, which he appended to his original post. For the sake of brevity I won’t dialogue with each one (I invite you to read the original Reddit post to see them), however I’ll briefly touch upon them as a whole, because this is another situation which we’ve seen before. Each of these quotes hinges on those critical words – “symbol”, “figure”, “spiritually” – which we’ve covered in depth with the previous article. Once again, just because an author claims that the Eucharist is a “symbol” or that it's meant to be “spiritually understood” does not mean it cannot also have that literal meaning. We are physical beings, thus tangible things are helpful for us to grasp, and God knows that.

Now, there’s a bit more to this article that Otnerio brings up in way of expounding his position vis-à-vis the Real Presence, however I’d like to suggest that you read through the post itself, along with some of the interlocutors who commented on it. My purpose here was just to dialogue with the Church Father quote portion of it, and frankly I’d be a bit out of my depth to go debating “physical presence” vs “substantial presence” and the like. I think there are some good responses in the comments section which counter the author’s points better than I can.

Stay tuned for the third installment of this series, where we get into some of the Biblical nitty-gritty of this teaching, and deal with some troubling Biblical interpretations from GotQuestions, which not only question the eucharist, but also seem to question the foundation of Christianity itself.

Other Posts in this Series:

Signs, Symbols, and Spiritual Things

Reddit and Church Fathers (you are here)

GotQuestions vs The Bible

Reddit and the Church Fathers

Further Reading:

Fellowship of the Quill