TDB 10 The Conversion of Marcus Grodi part 5 (The Eucharist part 3)

In this episode, we conclude our analysis of the second part of Marcus Grodi's evidence from the early church fathers that led to his conversion to Roman Catholicism: the Eucharist.

We briefly review the points on the Eucharist discussed in the previous two episodes. Then we address not only Grodi’s claim that the early church writers “unanimously” believed in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, but we also provide evidence of the rewriting and reinterpreting of the primitive, Biblical, apostolic liturgy in favor of the late 4th century novel Roman Catholic liturgy. Faced with the stark contrast between the early, apostolic liturgy in which a Eucharistic tithe sacrifice was offered prior to the consecration of the elements, and the later 4th century and medieval liturgy of Roman Catholicism in which the Eucharistic mass sacrifice was offered after the consecration of the elements, scholars, apologists, translators and theologians have reinterpreted and rewritten the early liturgy to make it consistent with the later. To do this, they repeatedly rewrite, translate and interpret the early liturgy in such a way as to collapse the Eucharistic tithe offering into the consecration—the epiclesis—making it appear that the early Church’s Eucharistic tithe offering was actually a liturgical offering of consecrated bread and wine—Christ’s body and blood—to the Father. The early church absolutely did not do this, and it was not until the latter part of the 4th century that the superstitious, idolatrous, abominable Roman mass sacrifice emerged.

Unable to explain the discontinuity, scholars and theologians simply assumed that whatever was taught at the end of the 4th century must be what the early writers meant. We provide evidence of the rewriting of the early liturgy to force it to comport with the medieval liturgy. And thus, the foolish, the ignorant, the superstitious and the simple are misled into thinking the apostolic and subapostolic church offered the abominable Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass. Marcus Grodi is just one of millions to fall for the lie.

Show Notes:

Marcus Grodi: The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw - The Journey Home (3-19-2007)

The “Sacrifice of the Mass” originally referred to the tithe offering, because unbelievers, the backslidden and the unconverted were dismissed just before the tithe was to be offered. The tithe offering came to be known as the sacrifice of the dismissal, the sacrifice of the “mass”.

Athanasius, Against the Arians, part 1, chapter 2, paragraph 28 (341 AD), “And how could it be that Oblations were offered when catechumens were within ? For if there were catechumens present, it was not yet the time for presenting the Oblations.”

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65 (155 AD) “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers…”

Hippolytus, Anaphora, chapter 20 (215 AD), “Those who are to be baptized are not to bring any vessel, only that which each brings for the eucharist. It is indeed proper that each bring the oblation in the same hour.”

The primitive liturgy of the church was a Eucharistic thank offering (the tithe), followed by an apostolic Amen, followed by a consecration of bread and wine taken from the Eucharist, followed by a meal. A Eucharist. An Amen. A Consecration. A meal.

1 Corinthians 14:16 “Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?”

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65-66 (155 AD) “And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings (eucharistian), all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. … so likewise have we been taught that the eucharisted food is made into the body and blood of Christ by the prayer of his word [the consecration]” (more on this below) (Note: the Greek is found in Migne, PG vol 6, cols 428-429).

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, letter [9] to Bishop Sixtus of Rome (254-258 AD) [Note: it is epistle IV in Migne’s series on the greek fathers; the letter is also recorded in Eusebius, Church History, Book 7, Chapter 9, where he refers to it as epistle VI]: “For I should not dare to renew afresh, after all, one who had heard the giving of thanks, and who had answered with others Amen; who had stood at the holy table, and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and had received it, and for a very long time had been a partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The consecration in the primitive liturgy was simply the words of Christ spoken over the bread and wine at the Last Supper: this is My body, broken for you, this is My blood, shed for you.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (155 AD) “…but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the eucharisted food by the prayer of His word, becomes the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.”

Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 17 (174-189 AD) “He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, "This is My body." And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood…”

Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 (174-189 AD), “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and the body of Christ .…”

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 40 (208 AD), “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body” ….”

In the early liturgy, the consecration was spoken after the bread had been distributed, or as the bread and wine were being distributed.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67 (155 AD) “…and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given…”

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 40 (208 AD), “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body” ….”

Origen, Against Celsus, Book VIII (248 AD), “But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.”

Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, letter to Fabian of Antioch (251-253 AD) [Recorded in Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, chapter 43], ““For when he has made the offerings and distributed a part to each man, as he gives it he compels the wretched man to swear in place of the blessing…”

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrnæans, paragraph 7 (107 AD), “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” When understood in the context of the early liturgy—in which unbelievers were not allowed to participate in the Eucharist, the Eucharist was the tithe offering, the consecration was not spoken until after the Eucharist had been distributed to the participant, and the consecration was the simple recitation of “This is My body, broken for you… This is My blood, shed for you”—Ignatius’ words speak not of a conviction of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but rather of the gnostic’s unwillingess to speak the words of consecration over the Eucharisted bread.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 65-66 (155 AD), “And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced … . And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. … we been taught that by the prayer of His word [the consecration], the eucharisted food (ευχαριστηθείσαν τροφην) becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus.” When understood in the context of the early liturgy, in which unbelievers were not allowed to participate in the Eucharist, the Eucharist was the tithe offering, and the consecration was not spoken until after the Eucharist had been distributed to the participants, Justin’s words are understood not to refer to a conviction that the Eucharistic prayer changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but rather that the unconverted were dismissed from the liturgy before the Eucharistic prayer over the tithe, and the words of consecration were then spoken over the bread and wine that had already been “eucharisted.”

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans, paragraph 7 (107 AD)

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, paragraph 8 (107 AD)

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 70 (155-167 AD)

“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109- 124 (155-167 AD)

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit.”

Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraph 5 (174-189 AD)

“…that as bread from the earth, receiving the summons (έκκλησιν) of God, is no longer common bread but an Eucharist composed of two things, both an earthly and an heavenly one; so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of Eternal Resurrection.” (Keble, 361) [Here Irenæus says we partake of the Eucharist, but by, implication only after the Eucharist is consecrated (see Book V, chapter 2, below), and that it was already the Eucharist when it was first summoned by the Lord for the tithe. Irenæus has established a parallel to make a point—when the bread is summoned for a tithe, it becomes heavenly, and not just earthly, for, though earthly, it is now set apart for heavenly purposes; so too, we though earthly, are set apart for a heavenly destiny when we receive the consecrated bread. Notable, indeed, that the bread becomes the Eucharist —taking on twin realities—when it is summoned for a tithe, not when it is consecrated. We will discuss the variance between Keble’s translation and Schaff’s below.]

Irenæus, Fragment 37 (late 2nd century)

“And therefore the oblation (προσφορα, offering) of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation (προσφερομεν, offering) to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected (τελέσαντες, completed, finished) the oblation (προσφοραν, offering), we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit (αποφηνη, apophene) this sacrifice (την θυσιαν, the sacrifice, not this sacrifice), both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes (αντιτυπων) may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, chapter 6 (202 AD)

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols (συμβολων), when He said: ‘Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor (allegories, αλληγορων) 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”

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 40 (208 AD)

“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.”

Hippolytus, Anaphora, chapter 38 (215 AD)

“Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ.”

Origen, Homilies on Numbers, Homily 7, paragraph 2:

“At that time the manna was food ‘in an enigma,’ but now, ‘in reality,’ the flesh of the Word of God is ‘true food,’ just as he himself says: ‘My flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.’ [John 6:55].”

Origen, Homilies on Numbers: Homily 23, paragraph 6:

“…doctrinal and solid words that are brought forth in a way that is filled with faith in the Trinity, … All these things are the flesh of the Word of God.”

Origen, Homilies on Exodus, Homily 13:

“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God’s word than to have neglected his body?”

Roman Catholics wish to use this citation from Origen to show evidence of a belief in the “real presence” of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. The problem is, Hippolytus shows the same reverence for consecrated bread because of what it symbolizes:

Hippolytus, Anaphora, chapter 38 (215 AD)

“Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it.”

And Tertullian shows the same reverence for unconsecrated bread and wine just because of what it could be used to symbolize:

Tertullian, The Chaplet, Chapter 3

“We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground.”

If Tertullian is careful not to spill bread and wine because of what they could symbolize, and Hippolytus is careful with consecrated wine because of what it does symbolize, Origen’s care for the consecrated bread can hardly be used to prove an early belief in the “real presence” of Christ in the consecrated bread.

Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 57, paragraph 4 (254 - 257 AD) (note that by “present a person in the offerings” Cyprian means “to commemorate that person in the offerings):

“But I and my colleagues, and all the brotherhood, send this letter to you in the stead of us, dearest brother; and setting forth to you by our letter our joy, we express the faithful inclination of our love here also in our sacrifices and our prayers, not ceasing to give thanks to God the Father, and to Christ His Son our Lord; … For the victim which affords an example to the brotherhood both of courage and of faith, [ought to be offered up when the brethren are present.”

Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7 (254 - 257 AD) (note that Cyprian says we could not drink Christ’s blood until after the cross—which means He could not have given His disciples His blood to drink the night before He died):

“The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.”

Catholic Encyclopedia, Cyprian of Carthage

“We have always to remember that his experience as a Christian was of short duration, that he became a bishop soon after he was converted, and that he had no Christian writings besides Holy Scripture to study besides those of Tertullian.”

Aphrahat of Persia, Demonstration 12, On the Passover (mid-4th century)

“Our Saviour ate the Passover sacrifice with his disciples during the night watch of the fourteenth. He offered to his disciples the sign of the true Passover sacrifice.” (chapter 6)

“The Passover of the Jews is on the day of the fourteenth…. [but] Our day of great suffering, however, is Friday, the fifteenth day. …  our great day is Friday.” (chapter 8)

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 23, paragraph 20 (350 AD)

“Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.”

Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 2, paragraph 95 (361 AD)

“Since then I knew these things, and that no one is worthy of the mightiness of God, and the sacrifice, and priesthood, who has not first presented himself to God, a living, holy sacrifice, and set forth the reasonable, well-pleasing service, Romans 12:1 and sacrificed to God the sacrifice of praise and the contrite spirit, which is the only sacrifice required of us by the Giver of all; how could I dare to offer to Him the external sacrifice, the antitype of the great mysteries, or clothe myself with the garb and name of priest, before my hands had been consecrated by holy works; before my eyes had been accustomed to gaze safely upon created things, with wonder only for the Creator, and without injury to the creature;”

Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 45, paragraph 23 (381 AD)

“Now we will partake of a Passover which is still typical; though it is plainer than the old one.”

Macarius, The Elder (the Egyptian), Homily 27, paragraph 17

“in the church bread and wine should be offered, the symbol (ἀντίτυπον) of His flesh and blood, and that those who partake of the visible bread eat spiritually the flesh of the Lord, and that the apostles' and Christians receive the Paraclete, and are endued with power from on high, 2 and are filled with the Godhead, and their souls mingled with the Holy Ghost” Homily 27, paragraph 17.

On the introduction of kneeling during the consecration, after centuries of it being prohibited:

“Eventually kneeling became more common in public prayer with the increase of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. … In the Eucharist we are invited to approach an even greater manifestation of God’s presence–the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of God the Son–so it is fitting that we adopt what in our culture is one of the most reverential postures.” (Catholic Answers, Should we stand or kneel at mass? )

On the introduction of communion on the tongue after centuries of receiving it in the hand:

“It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves. … Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.” (Memoriale Domini: Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (May 29, 1969)).

On the prohibition of lay reservation after centuries of the practice:

“It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith. … Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament … .” (Memoriale Domini: Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (May 29, 1969)).

John Henry Cardinal Newman

“The acts of the fourth century .. may be fairly taken to interpret to us the dim, though definite, outlines traced in the preceding [centuries].” (John Cardinal Newman, On the Development of Christian Doctrine, chapter 4, paragraph 15).

Such an assumption was necessary to explain, as Newman described it, the “want of accord between the early and the late aspects of Christianity” (Newman, On the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, paragraph 20.)

Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A.

“[I]f there are early traces of identity of belief, they may be invisible, except to the eye of a Catholic, but perfectly clear to him. … What is intended is, not to assert that the present devotion to Mary existed in the early ages; that may be so or not: but that the principle on which it is based naturally led to it, and may be assumed to have been intended by God to lead to it.” (Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A., Jesus, the Son of Mary, 1851, pp. 25-33.)

Phillip Schaff

“[In Gregory of Nyssa] we have the full explanation of what Irenæus meant when he said that the elements ‘by receiving the Word of God become the Eucharist’ “. (Introduction to the Works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Chapter 7, Eucharistic Doctrine).

William Wigan Harvey

“…the prayer of consecration [is] mentioned by Justin Martyr in his First Apology, paragraph 65, and stated expressly by S. Basil to be something more than the simple words of Scripture.” (Harvey, W. Wigan, Sancti Irenæi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Contra Haereses, volume ii, Typis Academicis, 1857, 205n.)

Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 44

“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” (Alexander Roberts, D.D. & James Donaldson, LL.D.)

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” (William A. Jurgens)

 “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily presented the offerings.” (Phillip Schaff)

The original Greek is actuall “προσενεγκοντας τα δωρα” which literally translates as “offered the gifts.” (Migne, P.G. vol I, col 300)

Justin Martyr

Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109- 124 (155-167 AD)

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks [ευχαριστιαι], when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 117). (Migne, P.G. vol VI, col 745)

First Apology, 13 (155 AD)

“[Him] we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving (ευχαριστιας) for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by word of processions and to send forth hymns (gr: διά λόγου πομπάς και ύμνους πέμπειν; la: rationalibus eum pompis et hymnis celebrare) for our creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons.” (First Apology, Paragraph 13) (Migne, P.G. vol VI, col 345).

Lacking the greek word, epicleses, George Reith and Marcus Dods translated “διά λόγου πομπάς” as “invocations”.

First Apology, 66 (155 AD)

“… we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word … is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (Marcus Dods & George Reith)

“… we have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made by prayer in the word received from Him … is both the Flesh and Blood of Him the Incarnate Jesus.” (Phillip Schaff)

“the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, … is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Catholic Answers)

The original greek is “τὴν δι᾽ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν”. (Migne, P.G. vol VI, cols 428-429). Here, “the prayer of His word,” or “εὐχῆς λόγου,” which is the Consecration, is spoken over “that eucharisted food,” or “αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν,” indicating that in Justin, the Eucharistic prayer is not the Consecration, for the Eucharistic prayer took place before the prayer of His word. But all of these translations collapse the Eucharist (thanksgiving prayer) into the epiclesis (the consecration), such that the thanksgiving prayer makes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Irenæus

Against Heresies, Book I, chapter 13, paragraph 2 (174-189 AD)

“Pretending to offer the eucharist (εὐχαριστείν) in cups mingled with wine, and extending the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως) to unusual length…” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, volume 42, Five Books of S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Against Heresies, Rev. John Keble, M.A., translator, James Parker & Col, 1872, 41) (Migne PG vo VII, col 580).

Clearly, Irenæus has the “eucharist” separate from the “invocation” or “epiclesis” or “consecration.” But Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut collapsed the Eucharist into the Epiclesis, rending it, “Pretending to consecrate (εὐχαριστείν) cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation (ὲπικλήσεως) …”

Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, paragraph 5 (174-189 AD)

“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the summons (“έκκλησιν (ecclisin)”), of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly” (AH.IV.18.5, emphasis added). That is what the original Greek says. Ecclesin, the Greek word for Summons, indicating the Lord summoning the tithe. When it is summoned, it takes on two realities, earthly and heavenly. (Migne, PG, vol VII, col 1028).

Migne, recognizing the problem this causes for the Roman Catholic argument for transubstantiation, added a footnote indicating that even though the greek says “έκκλησιν (ecclisin, summons)”, “επικλησιν (epiclisin, invocation) is preferred”. And thus, Protestant scholars have followed suit, rendering in English something that Irenæus is known not to have said:

Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut: “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly;”

Harvey, W. Wigan, Sancti Irenæi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Contra Haereses, volume ii, Typis Academicis, 1857, 205n-206. “επικλυσιν is evidently the reading followed by the [Latin] translator, and is that which the sense requires.”

Trevor, George, The Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice and Participation of the Holy Eucharist. Trevor acknowledges that Irenæus used the word ecclesin instead of epiclesin, but it doesn’t matter (Trevor, 321n) because it is so clear that Irenæus was obviously talking about a symbolic oblation of Christ’s body and blood, so the sense is the same. Now citing from George Trevor, in his 1876 work, on this very paragraph of Irenæus:

“It is quite plain that the New Oblation of Irenæus is a sacrifice of Bread and Wine, offered both as the first-fruits of the earth and as symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, who is the first fruits from the dead.” (Trevor, 322)

John H. McKenna, The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era, wonders, credulously, what Irenæus must have meant when he said the bread takes on a heavenly reality at the invocation:

“Irenæus argues from the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to the reality of the bodily resurrection: ‘ … For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God (προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἐπικλυσιν του Θεού) is no longer common bread…’” (Second edition, Hillenbrand Books, 2009, 46.) Yet, Irenæus did not write ἐπικλυσιν. He wrote έκκλησιν.

Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2, paragraph 3 (174-189 AD)

Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut have Irenæus saying the bread and wine become the Eucharist at the consecration:

“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made…”

But that is a mistranslation. Phillip Schaff provides this acknowledgement in the footnote: Irenæus said, rather, that the bread and wine were already the Eucharist before the consecration, and at the consecration, the bread and wine become the body of Christ:

Phillip Schaff, footnote 4462

“The Greek text, of which a considerable portion remains here, would give, ‘and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.’”

Roberts’ & Rambaut’s mistranslation relies on the Latin, and obscures the fact that the Eucharist preceded the consecration, and that the bread and wine were already the Eucharist prior to the consecration.

Fragment 37 (late 2nd century)

“And therefore the oblation (προσφορα, offering) of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation (προσφερομεν, offering) to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected (τελέσαντες, completed, finished) the oblation (προσφοραν, offering), we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit (αποφηνη, apophene), this sacrifice (την θυσιαν, THE sacrifice, not THIS sacrifice), both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes (αντιτυπων) may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Migne, PG, vol VII, col 1253)

Hippolytus

Anaphora (215 AD)

Katherine E. Harmon, Assistant Professor of Theology at Marian University in Indianapolis, IN.

“My undergraduate students recently read the anaphora from a source which has been referred to as “the Apostolic Tradition according to St. Hippolytus of Rome.” Whether the students knew this lengthy title or not is unclear, as I, being a Notre Dame graduate, have taken an oath to use a heavy black marker to “x” out ruthlessly all references to Hippolytus in text books of liturgical history.” (The So-Called Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, February 12, 2105)

Fragment on Proverbs 9

Schaff: “‘And she hath furnished her table:’ that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper.”

Not only is this anachronistic reading inconsistent with the early liturgy in general, but it is inconsistent with Hippolytus’ own liturgy (in the Anaphora) and that of his mentor, Irenæus. It is notable, as well, that Proverbs 9 is about Wisdom furnishing her table for a meal, not furnishing her table for a sacrifice. This reading in Schaff’s series on the Ante-Nicæan Fathers is surely influenced by the intentional mistranslation in Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18 in which the offering is made to take place after the epiclesis.

Greek: “…και το τιμιον και αχραντον αυτου σωμα και αιμα απερ εν τη μυστικη και θεια τραπεζη καθ εκαστην επιτελουνται θυομενα εις αναμνησιν της αειμνηστου και πρωτγς εκεινης τραπεζης του μυστικου θειου δειπνου.” (Migne, PG, vol X, 628)

Better English translation: “……and to His honorable and undefiled body and blood, as on the mystical and divine table each day the sacrifices have been administered, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine suppe

This rendering is not only consistent with Justin, who said the consecration occurs only after the food has already been offered as a Eucharist (First Apology, Chapter 66), and with Hippolytus’ mentor, Irenæus, who said the bread and wine were already the Eucharist when they were offered, but that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ at the consecration (Against Heresies, Book I, chapter 13; Book IV, chapter 17-18, Book V, chapter 2), but also with Hippolytus himself, who said that the bread and wine are offered along with cheese, oil, and olives in the Eucharist, but that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ until the consecration is spoken over them. Thus, consistent with the testimony of the early church, the body and blood of Christ are present on the “spiritual and divine table” every day the sacrifices are administered, but the body and blood of Christ are not what is offered.

Additionally, this reading is consistent with Proverbs 9 which Hippolytus was expounding. His only point is that consecrated bread and wine are on the table, and thus Wisdom has furnished her table. But according to the early liturgy, when are the consecrated bread and wine on the table? They are on the table every day that the sacrifices have been administered, because the Supper is always preceded by the Eucharist.

Gregory of Nazianzen

Oration 18 (374 AD)

Paragraph 20

“Who was more sympathetic in mind, more bounteous in hand, towards the poor, that most dishonoured portion of the nature to which equal honour is due? For he actually treated his own property as if it were another's, … . This is what most men do: they give indeed, but without that readiness, which is a greater and more perfect thing than the mere offering.”

Paragraph 25

““How could anyone be more conclusively proved to be good, and worthy to offer the gifts (δωρα) to God?” (Migne, PG vol 35, col 1016)

Oration 45 (381 AD)

Paragraph 30

“But, O Pascha, great and holy and purifier of all the world — for I will speak to you as to a living person — O Word of God and Light and Life and Wisdom and Might — for I rejoice in all Your names — O Offspring and Expression and Signet of the Great Mind; O Word conceived and Man contemplated, Who bearest all things, binding them by the Word of Your power; receive this discourse, not now as firstfruits, but perhaps as the completion of my offerings, a thanksgiving, and at the same time a supplication, that we may suffer no evil beyond those necessary and sacred cares in which our life has been passed; and stay the tyranny of the body over us; (You see, O Lord, how great it is and how it bows me down) or Your own sentence, if we are to be condemned by You. But if we are to be released, in accordance with our desire, and be received into the Heavenly Tabernacle, there too it may be we shall offer You acceptable Sacrifices upon Your Altar, to Father and Word and Holy Ghost; for to You belongs all glory and honour and might, world without end.” [These sacrifices are begin offered to Christ, and to the Godhead. Obviously, the sacrifice is not Christ’s body and blood."]

Oration 18 (374 AD)

Paragraph 29

“Then, after adding the customary words of thanksgiving [της ευχαριστιας], and after blessing the people, he retired again to his bed, and after taking a little food, and enjoying a sleep, he recalled his spirit, and, his health being gradually recovered, on the new day of the feast, as we call the first Sunday after the festival of the Resurrection, he entered the temple and inaugurated his life which had been preserved, with the full complement of clergy, and offered the sacrifice of thanksgiving.” [Migne, Migne PG, vol 35, col 1021].

This is obviously a Eucharist offering of unconsecrated food. Nevertheless, Migne adds in a footnote the interpretation of Jacobus Billius, noting that “after adding the customary words of thanksgiving [της ευχαριστιας]”, which really only indicate that the Eucharistic prayers have been interrupted, can be understood to mean, “that the consecration is completed” [“vel ea intelligi posse, quibus consecratio perficitur”], demonstrating the propensity of the scholars to collapse the Eucharist into the Epiclesis.