Lord's Supper in the Early Church

[MissMaryMac]

Hey guys, how are you?
Now, I'm posing this question with the risk that it could turn into a huge debate. However, I'm hoping that we can keep this to just what I'm asking for.
Now,I'm writing a paper for my History of Christianity class on the Lord's Supper in the early church. The plan was to show both sides of the debate and different practices that each have. However, the only evidence that I can find from the early church all points to the acceptance of transubstantiation, or that the Water and Wine in the celebration of the Lord's Supper actually turn into the Body and Blood of Jesus. The earliest opposition I can find to this is only a bit before the Reformation. So, I am wondering if any of you have any idea or evidence that there was opposition before this or that it was not the way many early Christians practiced. If you do, I'd love to be able to use it for my paper. However, because it is a university paper, I will need direct references.Thanks in advance.
MissMaryMac

 

[Soldier_Of_Christ]

Direct reference can be difficult on this issue. A seldom mentioned, but ever true fact, is that history is not written by the unbiased but by those who were in control at that time. Our history books would read quite differently if Hitler had won the war. The Nazi's had changed their history books to credit Germans with inventing or accomplishing various things that were actually invented and accomplished by non-Germans.

In the same sense, my experience with research in the Anti-Nicene Fathers and other "early christian writings" shows them teaching things catholic doctrine, even before there was officially a catholic church. Those doctrines were birthed long before the catholic church came. They didn't just pop into a pope's mind at random. An extensive research finds many of the catholic doctrines existing in Old Testament times coming from various pagan religions.

Reading through Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and other testimonies from that time period, make it very clear that any writings which were not pro catholic were destroyed where ever they were found. Thus, it makes sense that most of what you will find of early Christian writings will be pro catholic. Considering the opposition in that time period, it's a miracle that we ever were given the Bible in the English language or any language other than, Hebrew, Greek or Latin. We find more Reformed writings surviving as more people began to accept the teachings of those who were willing to risk and even give their lives to teach people the truth of God's word. The more people who begin to accept it, the better the chance that someone finding such writings would preserve and spread them, rather than turn them over to the authorities for destruction. In those days you could be burned alive just for showing sympathy to someone else being burned alive for their profession of faith. Iit took a lot of courage and strength of conviction for someone to stand up for these truths.

As such, while we can learn about a time from reading writings from that time, the authority of those writers on spiritual matters are generally no more or less valid than a contemporary writer. The final authority of all matters spiritual is the Holy Word of God. That's the best place to go for references to how the early church observed the Lord's Supper. I recommend 1 Corinthians 11 and corresponding passages. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless and guide your study and guide you into all truth according to his promise in John 16:7-15.

 

[loveschild]

I don't understand what your saying?

 

[Soldier_Of_Christ]

She cited her difficulty finding early Christian writings that did not support transubstantiation. I was simply pointing out the fact of severe persecution during the early years of Christianity that has resulted in a decreased availability of historical references regarding early church practice and doctrine. Due to the inherent problems therein, I was simply expressing the importance of letting scripture interpreted by the Holy Spirit be the final judge of right and wrong, rather than what writings have survived through hundreds of years of suppression and persecution.

 

[greatkraw]

Mary, to fully understand The Lord's Supper you have to go back to the original Passover.

That involved Lamb Meat and Blood.

By the time we get to Christ the Bread and Wine has substituted the Meat and Blood to symbolise the former.
The whole doctrine is about substitution and representation, not transformation. If it were transformation then Jesus turned himself into a door.

Jesus said, eery time you eat and drink remember me. That is why we say grace.

The Corinthians used to come together for a feast. The rich ones would have KFC, the healthy ones would have Subway and the poor ones would have one piece of mouldy bread. (Never mind the ones who brought a 'liquid' lunch.)
Paul said 'do your pigging out at home'.
So we make the Lord's Supper a special ceremony. One of only 2 Sacraments the Lord gave us.

Remember Substitution and Representation, not Transformation.

 

[suaso]

I'm sure you've already come across it, but if you haven't, go to your library and they should either have it in an anthology or as it's own source: the Didache . It's one of the earliest references in Christianity outside of the Bible that mentions the Lord's Supper. More specifically, it gives instructions on how it is to be celebrated correctly, which by it's context, tells you a lot about what the Christians who wrote believed about what would later be called transubstantiation.

 

[MahogonySnail]

the didache only really says this:


Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
​

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
​

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.


In the Didache there is no reference to transubstantiation. Church of England scholars and theologians of the past have done extensive studies of early church writings and it is concluded a) the early church referred to the elements in symbolic or figurative nature, and b) most of the references to the elements being the blood and body of Christ are to avoid the issue of gnosticism which denied the physical death and existance of Christ.

The modern day doctrine of transub. is very specific doctrine which is not found in early church writings as it is believed today. Nor is it proven that the mass itself is the sacrifice, rather, early church writings indicate that it was the prayers and thanksgiving that was the sacrifice not the elements themselves.
​

 

[wattie]

Here our some historical references to churches that did not believe in the Lord's Supper being actual blood and body of Jesus:

From The Trail of Blood by S.E. Anderson:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sir Isaac Newton:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mosheim (Lutheran):[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.[/FONT]


These churches then.. and now.. do not believe the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is the actual body and blood of Christ.

Also to note of these churches:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370." (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)[/FONT]

 

[MahogonySnail]

I'm not sure that any baptists or anabaptists rather, who did not symbolise with Rome, still exist (as in continuous heritage).
Modern day baptist denominations in our society today come from the separatist movements in England, who cannot really be traced back further than the 17th centuary. http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. Some of these earnest people read the Bible in their own language, believed it, and sought to live by it. They formed separate congregations which accepted only believers into their membership, and they baptized converts upon their profession of faith. Their opponents nicknamed them "Baptists," and the name stuck. This pamphlet will fill in some of the details of that story.

 

[wattie]

yeah.. when you look at baptist history.. it is true their are baptists that just like protestants.. came out of the catholic church as protestors against it.. and formed their own churches.. but you also have baptist whose records have been mostly destroyed who have been around seperate from Catholics and the reformers. The can be discovered not by seeing an unbroken.. continuous line.. but by seeing the same teaching in these independent baptist churches going right back.. as the Trail of Blood accounts.

Anyway.. the point is.. that these are all churches that believed the Lord's Supper was symbolic.. and not the actual blood and flesh of Jesus.

It is true.. that these baptists formed seperate congregations which accepted only believers into their membership and baptised upon confessions of faith.. and they were nicknamed baptists by others.. but this goes on well before the 17th century in churches that were not named baptists but had the same teaching.

The Battle for Baptist History shows this.. so does the Trail of Blood..

They are still alive today.. I am what you could call an ana-baptist.. not by having a perfect trace back thru history of churches linking to eachother.. but by having the same teaching that very early christian churches adhered to.

So there you go

 

[greatkraw]

I'm not sure that any baptists or anabaptists rather, who did not symbolise with Rome, still exist (as in continuous heritage).
Modern day baptist denominations in our society today come from the separatist movements in England, who cannot really be traced back further than the 17th centuary. http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. Some of these earnest people read the Bible in their own language, believed it, and sought to live by it. They formed separate congregations which accepted only believers into their membership, and they baptized converts upon their profession of faith. Their opponents nicknamed them "Baptists," and the name stuck. This pamphlet will fill in some of the details of that story.

But Snail, it is preterist dogma that there was always a faithful remnant and they were finally wiped out 3.5 years before Martin Luther.
That is part of the historical interpretation of Revelation.
The 3.5 years accords with the 3.5 days the witnesses remain dead.

 

[MahogonySnail]

sorry greatkraw but that one went right over my head.

 

[greatkraw]

sorry greatkraw but that one went right over my head.

I am trying to track down a book by a guy with historical interpretaion. He maintains that there was always a remnat of true believers(including early anabaptists) even during the rise of the Papacy. He contends that they were finally wiped out but only 3 1/2 years before Martin Luther. Thus this was the fulfillment in Revelation of the witnesses which were slain and whose bodies remained in display in the street for 3 1/2 days.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Oh, I get it now. He isn't aware that the year-day principle is out-dated.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Oh, I get it now. He isn't aware that the year-day principle is out-dated.

lol. Even if it is accidental, nice pun.

 

[motojojo]

Sorry but to the early church the body and blood of Christ was much more than crackers and grape juice!

 

[wattie]

it meant more than crackers and grape juice.. but was not mystically THE blood and body of Jesus

 

[greatkraw]

it meant more than crackers and grape juice.. but was not mystically THE blood and body of Jesus

yeah the crackers is what Jesus would have had at the last supper.

It is full of symbolism. This is the unleavened bread the Jews use at the passover.

It is dry and has small holes and stripes from cooking in the grill.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, He was pierced for our iniquities, by His stripes we are healed."

 

[greatkraw]

The wine represents the blood which represents the life which is poured out.

In this case, His.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Jesus said "I am a vine", so catholics et al. must think Jesus was literally a vine (either became or turned into), as well.