|
The
Holy Eucharist in the Fathers of the Church
John Paul II's recent Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia,
certainly contains many patristic citations, although his references to
conciliar and more recent ecclesial documents are even more plentiful.
This is not surprising and is entirely understandable since, with regard
to the Eucharist as with so many of her other doctrines, the faith of
the Church has made great progress down the ages. Yet the patristic
texts have kept intact their fascination and importance, since they help
us grasp the continuity of the faith and feel in communion with the
early Church. Since it is impossible here to set forth fully the
Fathers' thought on the Eucharist, we limit ourselves to picking out
certain things. Let us start by drawing attention to an aspect to which
not much thought as yet has been given.
The discipline of mystery
In a tomb inscription that dates back to the end of
the second century, the author, recounting his life, alludes to
participation in the Eucharist in figurative terms that are accessible
only to Christians: "Faith guided me everywhere. Everywhere it
procured for me as food a freshwater fish, very large, very pure, and
caught by an immaculate virgin. Time and again she would give it to her
friends to eat; she has a delicious wine which she offers with the
bread" (Enchiridion fontium his. eccl. antiquae, C. Kirch,
p. 93).
Albercio's words are a discernible echo of the
so-called "disciplina dell'arcano" (discipline of mystery),
the secrecy with which the ancient Church liked to shroud with religious
reverence the most august mysteries of her faith, such as Baptism and
the Eucharist, forbidding them to be spoken about to the uninitiated and
even to catechumens. We find the clearest references to this in the
Fathers of the fourth century. St Ambrose writes: "The mystery must
remain sealed within you... in order that it
not be divulged to those among whom it should not be, to prevent it from
being spread by garrulous loquacity among the disbelieving" (Myst.
9, 55; CSEL 73, 113).
In his commentary on a psalm, St Augustine asserted
that in the Church the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist are
reserved and not public: "In fact, the good works that we do are
also seen by pagans, but the sacraments are hidden from them" (En
Ps 103, dl, 14; NBA, XXVII, 664, Città Nuova). The most
explicit mention is found in one of the recently discovered letters:
"The mysteries of being born to new life become known in a
correct and orderly manner only to those who receive them" (Ep
2*, 4; NBA XXIII/A, 16).
Unfortunately, a secondary consequence of this rule
of silence, a sign of great respect for the most august mysteries of the
faith, was the fact that they were rarely discussed and only in the most
fitting context of catechesis. This explains why we find in certain
patristic works, in which we might expect a fuller or deeper treatment
of the Eucharist, only rare and disappointing references to it.
The various contexts
In fact, the Fathers never directly attempted a discourse on the
Eucharist itself, but almost always approached it from the perspective
required by the circumstances.
Ignatius of Antioch, for example, in the letters he
wrote to the different Christian communities he met on his way to
martyrdom, often mentions the Eucharist but always in few words and to
remind the communities to preserve ecclesial unity. To the Ephesians he
wrote: "Try, therefore, to gather more often for the celebration of
the Eucharist and to praise the Lord. Indeed, when you gather together,
Satan's power is dispelled and his scourges dissolve in the harmony that
faith teaches you" (Eph 13; PG 5, 656).
He addressed an even more compelling invitation
to unity to the community of Philadelphia: "Seek to participate in
the one Eucharist: indeed, the flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and
there is one cup that unites us in his blood; there is one altar, and
one bishop with his priests and deacons, servants like me" (Philadelphia.,
4; PG 5, 700).
In turn, in his first Apologia, Justin
Martyr wanted to convince the slanderers of Christians of the integrity
of their way of life and the holiness of their worship. He was the first
to describe in detail the rites of regeneration and of the Eucharist,
for he wanted pagans who considered Christians criminals to realize
their error. Despite his evident apologetic intention, the description
he has left us is of extraordinary historical importance. "And on
the day known as Sunday all of us, from the town and the country, gather
together in one place to form an assembly at which the accounts of the
apostles and writings of the prophets are read out in the time
available; then, when the reader has ended, the presider gives a sermon,
making recommendations to us and urging us to imitate these good things.
Then we all rise and pray together. As we have already said, when our
prayer is over, bread, wine and water are brought; the presider...
raises prayers and thanksgiving and the people applaud by saying the
'Amen'. This is followed by the breaking and the distribution to each
person of the bread and wine for which thanks have been given; and it is
taken by the deacons to those who are not present" (Apologia
I, 67, 3-5); PG 6, 439).
At a later date, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, spoke
of the Eucharist in an antiGnostic context. With the anti-corporeal
prejudice of the Platonists, the Gnostics asserted that the flesh cannot
share in eternal life, and Irenaeus argued against them: "If the
flesh is not saved, then neither has the Lord redeemed us with his
blood, nor is the Eucharistic cup the communion of his body.... Then how
can some people say that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of
God, that is, eternal life, when it is nourished by the Blood and Body
of Christ to which it belongs as a part of his members?" (Adv.
Haer 5, 2, 2-3; S.Ch 153, 30-34).
A quite different concern, on the other hand,
spurred Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, to write a letter on this subject
which is considered a real treatise. He wanted forcefully to stigmatize
an abuse that risked completely distorting the sacramental meaning of
the Eucharistic celebration. In some unspecified regions and for obscure
reasons, water was consecrated instead of wine. The Bishop expressed
surprise that on a matter of such great importance people would dare to
oppose the evangelical and apostolic discipline, and he forcefully
appealed that "in offering the cup the tradition of the Lord be
observed, and that on our part we do nothing other than what the Lord
did for us; that is, the cup, offered in remembrance of him, must be
offered with wine".
In addition to his reference to Christ's
Institution narrative, Cyprian gives further theological reasons for
this rule: "Since Christ said: 'I am the true vine' (Jn 15:1), the
blood of Christ is certainly not water but wine. Nor, if the cup contains
no wine which shows the blood of Christ, can we see that there is his
blood in the cup, with which we were redeemed and regenerated to new
life", (Ep 63, 2; CSEL 3, II, 702). In short,
"In the consecration of the cup of the Lord plain water cannot be
offered, just as wine alone cannot be offered", for "when
water is mixed with the wine in the cup, the people gather round Christ,
and the crowd of believers are combined and united with all who believe;
if only wine is offered, the blood of Christ begins to be without us;
then, if there is only water, the people begin to be without
Christ" (Ep 63, 13; CSEL 3, II, 711).
In his letter, although the disciplinary concern
prevails, Cyprian also touches on other doctrinal aspects such as the
real presence of Christ, the sacrificial and memorial character of the
passion and death of the Lord, the bond of the sacrament with the life
and unity of the Church. All these aspects and others, as salutary
effects of the sacrament, are even more clearly explained in the
catecheses the Bishop gives the neophytes. We can recall here only a few
of them.
The Eucharist in catechesis
In his mystagogical catecheses, this is how Cyril
of Jerusalem insisted on the real presence of Christ: "Since Jesus
himself declared, saying of the bread: 'This is my body', who would dare
to doubt it? Since he asserted and said: 'This is my blood', who could
possibly want to dispute it and suggest that it is not his blood?"
(Cat. Myst. 4, 1; S. Ch 126, 134). Cyril highlighted the
real transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of the
Lord, which happens through the power of the Holy Spirit, invoked by the
minister; he pointed out that, "when the spiritual sacrifice is
made, the bloodless worship, over this propitiatory host", the
Church invokes peace for the whole world and prays for the living and
the dead (ibid. 5, 7-8; S. Ch 126, 154-156).
Finally, he exalts the effectiveness of the
sacrament, saying the believer, in partaking of the body and blood of
Christ, becomes "concorporeal and consanguineous with Christ",
and is transformed "into a bearer of Christ", and the
"sharer in his divine nature" (ibid., 4, 3; S. Ch
126, 136).
In his catecheses Ambrose of Milan also expresses
very clearly his faith in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament,
the transformation of the bread and wine through the power of the
consecration: "Before being consecrated it is bread; when Christ's
words are spoken, it is the body of Christ. Listen to him further
saying: 'Take and eat all of you, this is my body'. Before Christ's
words, the cup is full of wine and water; when the words of Christ are
spoken, the cup contains the blood that has redeemed the people; so look
at all the ways in which Christ's words have the power to transform all
things". Ambrose reminded the neophytes that, "while those who
ate the manna died, those who eat this body will obtain forgiveness of
their sins and will never die" (De Sacramentis IV, 23-24; CSEL
73, 56).
There are seldom disagreements about the Eucharist.
In the writings of some Fathers, however, we sometimes find explanations
that seem reductive. Reacting to these explanations in one of his
catechetical homilies, Theodore of Mopsuestia criticized the use of the
word "figure" with regard to the Eucharist: "It is very
clear that in offering
the bread he did not say: 'This is the "figure" of my body',
but: 'This is my body'; likewise, in offering the cup he did not say
'This is the "figure" of my blood', but 'This is my blood';
because, since these (elements) had received the grace and coming of the
Holy Spirit, he wanted us to look no longer at their nature but to take
them as constituting the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical
Homilies: XV, 10; Tonneau-Devreesse, Studi e Testi, 145,
475).
We do not know to whom this criticism was
addressed. We do know, however, that there were many in the East who,
without denying the real presence, provided allegorical interpretations
of the sacrament, such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. In the West,
too, authors such as Ambrose and Augustine sometimes used incorrect
terms, such as "figure" or "likeness", which risked
suggesting that the sacrament's value was purely symbolic. Nonetheless,
the orthodoxy of their faith is unquestionable.
The Bishop of Hippo did not fail to teach the
neophytes clearly about the real presence of Christ in the consecrated
bread and wine: "You must know what it is that you have received,
what you will receive and what you must receive every day. That bread
which you see upon the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body
of Christ. The cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the
words of God, is the blood of Christ. With these things, Christ Our Lord
wanted to give us his body and his blood, which he poured out for us for
the forgiveness of sins" (S 227, 1; 229, 1; NBA XXXII/1,
386).
In another discourse, after recalling the ancient
sacrifices, he explained that "the sacrifice of our day is now the
body and blood of the Priest himself.... Christ Our Lord, who in
suffering gave for us what through being born he shared with us, having
become the eternal High Priest, prescribes the offering of the
sacrifice that you see, that is, his body and his blood". He
therefore urged the neophytes to "recognize in the bread the very
(body) that hung upon the cross, and in the cup, the very blood that
flowed from his side" (S 228/B, 1-2; ibid., 398).
Among the effects of the sacrament, together with
the forgiveness of sins, the Bishop of Hippo stressed the gift of
eternal life, since in the sacrament, he explained, "You receive
that flesh of which our Life himself said: the bread which I shall give
for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51); and, further: unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no
life in you (Jn 6:53)". Living in Africa, that is, in a Church
which had long been tormented by the Donatist schism, he especially
liked to exalt the Eucharist as a sacrament and the bond of the Church's
unity. Through Baptism, he explained to the newly baptized, you have
begun to be united in Christ and to form one body in him; therefore,
"in order not to become divided, you eat your bond; in order not to
consider yourselves worthless, you drink the price of your redemption.
So it is that when you eat and drink of it, it is transformed within
you; thus, you too are transformed into the body of Christ, as long as
you live in obedience and piety" (S 228/B, 3; ibid.,
400).
Taking up and developing a thought already present
in the Didache and in other earlier authors, St Augustine sees
the bread and wine offered on the altar as an image he can use to exhort
Christians to unity: "Just as you see that everything which has
been done expresses unity, so may you too be one thing only, loving one
another, keeping the one faith, the one hope and individual charity.
When heretics receive this thing, they receive a witness against
themselves, for they seek division, whereas this bread indicates
unity" (S 229, 2; ibid., 404).
|
