What the Early Church Believed: Reeves makes no pretense of hiding his disgust at

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Catholicism, and he gets basic Catholic theology
wrong (for instance, the entire point of the
The history of the Catholic Church includes “unbloody” and “bloody” distinction is to stress
innumerable reform movements. The Reformation, that the Crucifixion isn’t repeated daily), but he’s
ironically, isn’t really one of them. As the historian right to say the Mass is the center of Catholicism,
Eugene Rice explains, “the Protestant Reformation both then and now. We can say, almost literally, that
was not strictly a ‘reformation’ at all,” but “a it is the heart of Catholicism, for it is here that (if
revolution, a full-scale attack on the traditional Catholics are right) Christ makes himself present to
doctrines and sacramental structure of the Roman us, bodily. The Eucharist is “the source and summit
Church.” To put the distinction simply, the of the Church’s life and mission.” In the words of
Reformers weren’t trying to get bad Catholics to Pope John Paul II, “the Church draws her life from
become good Catholics; they were trying to get the Eucharist. This truth does not simply express a
bad Catholics and good Catholics to stop being daily experience of faith, but recapitulates the heart
Catholic. They were attacking their opponents of the mystery of the Church.”
not for failing to live up to their beliefs (the way
a true reformer might), but for having the wrong It’s for this reason that differences between
set of beliefs to begin with. Michael Reeves, in Catholicism and Protestantism on the Eucharist
The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart are the most important doctrinal issue dividing
of the Reformation, describes the Reformation us. When the Reformers rejected the Mass as false
as “a revolution, and revolutions not only fight worship and even “paganism and idolatry,” they
for something, they also fight against something, were rejecting the daily worship that the Christians
in this case, the old world of medieval Roman before them had offered for fifteen hundred years.
Catholicism.” Here’s how he describes the faith that Even today, you can still find variations of the claim
the Reformers rejected: the Catholic Mass is really “pagan.” For instance,
Frank Viola and George Barna claim in their book
It was through baptism that people (generally Pagan Christianity? that “the Mass did not originate
as infants) were first admitted to the Church with the New Testament; it grew out of ancient
to taste God’s grace. Yet it was the Mass Judaism and paganism,” and that it is “essentially a
that was really central to the whole system. blending together of a resurgence of Gentile interest
That would be made obvious the moment in synagogue worship and pagan influence that
you walked into your local church: all the dates back to the fourth century.”
architecture led towards the altar, on which
the Mass would be celebrated. And it was But while Protestants have historically been united
called an altar with good reason, for in the in rejecting the Mass, they have not been united
Mass Christ’s body would be sacrificed afresh on any particular vision of what right worship
to God. It was through this “unbloody” looks like, or on any particular theology of the
sacrifice offered day after day, repeating Lord’s Supper. It is thus simplistic to speak of
Christ’s “bloody” sacrifice on the cross, that “the Protestant view” on the matter. But there
God’s anger at sin would be appeased. are at least three major areas in which Catholics
and Protestants disagree, and on each of them,
Catholics are the ones faithful to the early Church.
 within the biblical texts themselves to conclude that
1. Did the early Christians believe in the Real the answers to these questions are yes. But for now,
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and did I want to make a simpler point: that whether this
they view this as a theologically important literal interpretation is true or false, it is how the
question for Church communion? earliest Christians understood Jesus’ words.
2. Did they view the Mass as a sacrifice?
3. Did they have open or closed Communion? The Protestant Church historian J.N.D. Kelly
(That is, did they permit those outside full summarizes what we might call the “big picture”
communion to receive Communion?) of early Christian belief: “eucharistic teaching, it
should be understood at the outset, was in general
Let’s look at each of these in turn. unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread
and wine were taken to be, and were treated and
The Importance of the Real Presence designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” We
find this literal view present from the start. To get
At the Last Supper, “Jesus took bread, and blessed, a sense of what Kelly is talking about, let’s look at
and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, a few specific examples. As you’re reading these
‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, early witnesses (whether or not you agree with
and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, them), notice a few things: how well developed
saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood their eucharistic theology is, how universally this
of the covenant, which is poured out for many theology seems to be accepted, and how central
for the forgiveness of sins’” (Matt. 26:26-28). this eucharistic theology is to their faith and to the
This moment is significant enough that we find Church of their day.
it reported by each of the Synoptics, plus St. Paul
(Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25). Let’s start around A.D. 107. St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. John, the only evangelist not to report it directly, is on the way to his martyrdom, and he writes
instead has the so-called bread of life discourse, in a series of several letters to the churches of Asia
which Jesus responds to the question “how can this Minor. In several of these, he warns about certain
man give us his flesh to eat?” by declaring: heretics who were denying the Incarnation. In
technical terms, they were Docetists, meaning they
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the taught that Jesus had only appeared to come in
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, human form. Docetism is often tied to the heresy
you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh of Gnosticism: since Gnostics viewed the flesh as
and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will evil, they were repelled by the idea that “the Word
raise him up at the Last Day. For my flesh is became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). As
food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He you might imagine, a denial of the Incarnation also
who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides involved rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in
in me, and I in him (6:52-56). the Eucharist. The Eucharist can’t be the body and
blood of Christ if he didn’t really have a body or
How literally should we take Jesus? Does he really blood in the first place.
mean that the bread and wine have become his
body and blood? Does he actually mean that his So what does Ignatius have to say about this?
flesh “is food indeed”? There are plenty of reasons According to Protestant apologists like the
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered
(CARM)’s Luke Wayne, not much. Instead, he for our sins, and which the Father, of his
argues: goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore,
The issue is not what these false teachers who speak against this gift of God, incur
believe about the physical nature of the bread death in the midst of their disputes. But it
and wine during Communion. It is what they were better for them to treat it with respect,
believe about the nature of Jesus himself and that they also might rise again. It is fitting,
his passion and resurrection. . . . You are not therefore, that you should keep aloof from
to avoid these teachers because they might such persons, and not to speak of them either
mislead you on the nature of the bread and in private or in public, but to give heed to
cup. You are to avoid them because they deny the prophets, and above all, to the gospel, in
what the Scriptures teach about the suffering, which the Passion has been revealed to us,
death, and resurrection of Christ. and the Resurrection has been fully proved.
But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of
On its face, Wayne’s objection is perfectly sensible evils.cxlv
(particularly for Protestants who have never read
Ignatius). If Ignatius were a Protestant, his response The issue for Ignatius (or rather, one of the issues)
to Docetism would have certainly focused only precisely is “what these false teachers believe about
on the implications on “the suffering, death, and the physical nature of the bread and wine during
resurrection of Christ,” since it would not be Communion.” His argument works like this:
particularly important what the Docetists believed
about the nature of the “bread and wine during 1. Because the Docetists deny the Incarnation,
Communion.” Indeed, Ignatius might even have they deny the Real Presence of Christ in the
agreed with the Docetists on this point: that while Eucharist (“they confess not the Eucharist to
the Incarnation wasn’t symbolic, the Eucharist is. be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”).
2. Because they “speak against this gift of God,”
But there’s a problem with this view. Ignatius says the Eucharist, they “incur death”—that is,
the opposite of nearly everything Wayne says. damnation.
Wayne is discussing chapters six and seven of 3. It would be spiritually better for them to
Ignatius’s letter to the Smyrnaeans. In chapter six, acknowledge the truth about the Eucharist, so
Ignatius argues that the Docetists cannot be saved they can “rise again” in the bodily resurrection.
by the blood of Christ while rejecting the flesh 4. Since the Docetists deny Communion, we
and blood of the Incarnation. But then, in chapter can’t be in communion with them at all, so
seven, he turns to the Eucharist. And what does avoid them both publicly and privately.
Ignatius have to say about Docetism here? Here’s 5. Finally, we need to grow in our fidelity to
chapter seven in its full, unadulterated13 form: gospel truth and Christian unity (the two
things that the Docetists undermine).
The issue is not what these false teachers
believe about the physical nature of the bread Ignatius’s arguments make sense only if both he and
and wine during Communion. They abstain his readers are understanding Jesus’ teaching about
from the Eucharist and from prayer, because the Eucharist literally, including his warning and
they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh promise in John 6:53-54, connecting the Eucharist
to bodily resurrection: “Truly, truly, I say to you, cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink them, gives praise and glory to the Father of
his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my the universe, through the name of the Son
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at
will raise him up at the Last Day.” To suggest that considerable length for our being counted
Ignatius either isn’t focused on the Eucharist (when worthy to receive these things at his hands.
he’s dedicated a chapter to it specifically) or doesn’t And when he has concluded the prayers and
believe it’s really the flesh of Jesus begs belief. thanksgivings, all the people present express
their assent by saying Amen. This word
This is not the only place in which Ignatius spells Amen answers in the Hebrew language to
out his belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president
Eucharist, but it is a particularly revealing one. has given thanks, and all the people have
Ignatius is clear that Church communion flows expressed their assent, those who are called
from sacramental Communion. In the words of by us deacons give to each of those present
Paul, “because there is one bread, we who are many to partake of the bread and wine mixed
are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 with water over which the thanksgiving was
Cor. 10:16). The converse of this is that the person pronounced, and to those who are absent
who rejects the Real Presence rejects the foundation they carry away a portion.
of the Church. That’s why Ignatius says it is “fitting”
to cut off personal contact with them: they’re The references to the “thanksgivings”
breaking communion by denying Communion. (eucharistian), the presider having “given thanks”
(eucharistēsantos), and the like are more obviously
Were Ignatius and the Christians of Asia Minor eucharistic in Justin’s original Greek. For instance,
alone in taking this view of the Eucharist? They the phrase being translated as “the bread and wine
were not. St. Justin Martyr, writing in Rome around mixed with water over which the thanksgiving
the year 160, includes a description of the second- was pronounced” can also be rendered “the
century liturgy. He explains that “on the day called eucharistized bread and wine and water.” All of
Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country this is drawn out clearly (even in English) in the
gather together to one place, and the memoirs of next chapter, in which Justin says that “this food is
the apostles or the writings of the prophets are called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist]” and
read, as long as time permits.” After the readings explains:
comes the homily, in which the presider “verbally
instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good For not as common bread and common
things.” Then come the prayers of the faithful (“we drink do we receive these; but in like manner
all rise together and pray”) followed by what we as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been
now call the Liturgy of the Eucharist, including sign made flesh by the Word of God, had both
of peace, the presentation of the gifts, eucharistic flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise
prayers, and distribution of Communion: have we been taught that the food which is
blessed by the prayer of his word, and from
Having ended the prayers, we salute one which our blood and flesh by transmutation
another with a kiss. There is then brought are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that
to the president of the brethren bread and a Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles,
 in the memoirs composed by them, which calls the charge of eating of human flesh “the
are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto most impious and barbarous of all.”
us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus
took bread, and when he had given thanks, At no point does Wayne seem to consider the
said, “This do ye in remembrance of me, this obvious point that if the opponents of second-
is my body”; and that, after the same manner, century Christianity are accusing them of
having taken the cup and given thanks, he cannibalism, that tells us a great deal about those
said, “This is my blood”; and gave it to them Christians’ eucharistic theology. Catholics today
alone. routinely have to defend themselves against the
charge of cannibalism, while it would be difficult to
Justin then mentions, almost as an aside, that mistake most Protestant Lord’s Suppers as anything
“the wicked devils” have imitated this rite “in the more than symbolic. So even in denying the charge
mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing of cannibalism, Justin and the second-century
to be done.” Church sound Catholic, not Protestant.

The liturgy that Justin describes is immediately Justin even uses the language of transmutation
recognizable as the Mass. Not only are the to describe the transformation taking place,
individual parts the same, but with minor although not where you might expect. That is,
exceptions (like the placement of the sign of he describes us as being transmutated by the
peace), even the order is the same. The center of Eucharist, that our flesh and blood are spiritually
this Mass is not a preacher giving a sermon, but a united to Christ through receiving Communion.
presider offering up the Eucharist. And how does It’s not just that the bread and wine change into
he understand the Eucharist? That what had been the body and blood of Christ, but that the body
“common bread and common drink” (that is, and blood of Christ transform our own bodies.
ordinary bread and wine) ceases to be through the What’s going on here? As St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.
formula of blessing given by Christ, and instead, 335-395) would later explain, Christians believed
it is now “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who that since “in no other way was it possible for our
was made flesh.” Even Wayne admits that “this body to become immortal, but by participating
is perhaps the best argument Roman Catholics in incorruption through its fellowship with that
have for their position,” although he nevertheless immortal body,” Jesus “disseminates himself in
insists that Justin can’t possibly be a believer in the every believer through that flesh, whose substance
Real Presence since he is against cannibalism (as comes from bread and wine, blending himself
if Catholics today think cannibalism is okay!). He with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by
writes: this union with the immortal, man, too, may be
a sharer in incorruption.” What Christ begins in
Justin is quite adamant that Christians do not the Incarnation (uniting divinity and humanity)
eat human flesh. He was not alone in such is done in the individual believer through the
comments. His second-century Christian Eucharist, and this is how we can be bodily raised
peers also made note of how particularly vile to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2
they saw the concept of eating human flesh. Pet. 1:4). It’s for this reason that both Jesus (see
When listing accusations he had heard leveled John 6:55-58) and so many of the early Christians
against Christians, Theophilus of Antioch pass from speaking of the Eucharist to bodily
resurrection and back. Ignatius and Justin treat because they’re uncorrupted by sin,” you might
this connection as almost too obvious to mention, respond with, “Should we trust them when they
leaving modern readers (who’ve never heard of this claim that monsters live under their beds?” That’s
connection) to stumble over their writings. a reductio ad absurdum. But notice that it works
only if both sides agree that a particular thing is
That brings us to the third major witness of what absurd or impossible. If the person you’re speaking
eucharistic theology looked like in the Church to believes in monsters, your argument is logically
before 200: St. Irenaeus. The Patristic historian sound but rhetorically unpersuasive. Both Ignatius
(and Reformed Protestant) James R. Payton, Jr. and Irenaeus lived in a world in which showing “X
rightly calls him “the greatest theologian to arise in idea is logically contrary to believing in the Real
the Church since the time of the apostles.” As you Presence” is sufficient to debunk X idea (in this
may recall from chapter one, Irenaeus wrote c. 180 case, Docetism). Protestants who deny the Real
against the Gnostic heresy, a view that rejects the Presence find themselves in a strange place, unable
Incarnation and treats the body as evil. As Irenaeus to agree with either the Gnostics or their Christian
explains: opponents.

But vain in every respect are they who Irenaeus continues by arguing that Christ “has
despise the entire dispensation of God, and acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the
disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews
with contempt its regeneration, maintaining our blood; and the bread (also a part of the
that it is not capable of incorruption. But creation) he has established as his own body, from
if this indeed do not attain salvation, then which he gives increase to our bodies.” This is the
neither did the Lord redeem us with his same argument but in reverse: since we know that
blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the Christ turns created matter (bread and wine) into
Communion of his blood, nor the bread his body and blood, we must therefore conclude
which we break the Communion of his that creation isn’t evil. He then says:
body. For blood can only come from veins
and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the When, therefore, the mingled cup and the
substance of man, such as the Word of God manufactured bread receives the Word of
was actually made. God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the
body of Christ is made, from which things
In other words, if you deny the goodness of the the substance of our flesh is increased and
body, then you’re forced to deny both the reality of supported, how can they affirm that the
Christ’s death on the cross and the Real Presence. flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of
It’s important to recognize the argument being God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is
made here by Irenaeus (and by Ignatius before nourished from the body and blood of the
him). In technical terms, it’s what we call a reductio Lord, and is a member of him?—even as
ad absurdum, or what Aristotle called a deduction the blessed Paul declares in his epistle to
to the impossible. The argument works by showing the Ephesians, that “we are members of his
than an idea, if taken to its logical conclusion, body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” He does
would produce absurd results. For instance, if not speak these words of some spiritual and
someone said, “We should always trust children, invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor
 flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation becomes the Eucharist, which is the body
[by which the Lord became] an actual man, and blood of Christ; so also our bodies,
consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones— being nourished by it, and deposited in the
that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup earth, and suffering decomposition there,
which is his blood, and receives increase shall rise at their appointed time, the Word
from the bread which is his body. of God granting them resurrection to the
glory of God, even the Father, who freely
Irenaeus is explicit here: the bread and the gives to this mortal immortality, and to this
“mingled cup” (wine with water poured into corruptible incorruption.
it) receive the Word of God, and the Eucharist
“is made.” The wording there is significant: he’s Elsewhere, he makes this same point in the context
suggesting that some actual change is taking place. of what it looks like to give proper sacrifice to God:
We don’t just start calling bread Communion for a
while during the liturgy. God turns the wine and For we offer to him his own, announcing
bread into something that they weren’t before: consistently the fellowship and union of the
“the blood and the body of Christ.” Like Ignatius flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is
before him, Irenaeus refers to this as “the gift of produced from the earth, when it receives
God”16 and points out that this is all meant of a the invocation of God, is no longer common
true body (with flesh, and nerves, and bones!), not bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two
“some spiritual and invisible man.” After stressing realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our
the literalism of his eucharistic theology, he refers bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are
to the Eucharist as “the bread which is his body.” no longer corruptible, having the hope of
This is an important point for certain Protestant the resurrection to eternity.
objections, which we’ll address at the end of the
chapter: there’s nothing inconsistent in calling With each of these three Christians—Ignatius,
Jesus the bread of life and believing that the bread Justin, and Irenaeus—we have a rather
literally becomes his body. sophisticated eucharistic theology from remarkably
early in the life of the Church. The latest of these
Irenaeus’s explanation concludes with an argument three, Irenaeus, writes around the year 180. By way
similar to what we heard from both Justin Martyr of reference, the first time we see the word Trinity
and Ignatius, about how receiving the Eucharist is used is in 181, so this eucharistic theology is well
key to the ultimate incorruption and resurrection of established even while these same Christians are
the body: parsing through the nuances of trinitarian theology.
If you knew little about the early Christians, it
And just as a cutting from the vine planted might be easy to imagine that their belief in the
in the ground fructifies in its season, or Real Presence was because of superstition and
as a corn of wheat falling into the earth ignorance or some connection to paganism. What
and becoming decomposed, rises with we find instead is that their eucharistic theology
manifold increase by the Spirit of God, is inseparably interwoven with their beliefs about
who contains all things, and then, through Jesus’ incarnation, passion, and resurrection, as
the wisdom of God, serves for the use of well as our own bodily resurrection. When we
men, and having received the Word of God, find later forms of paganism, like Mithraic rituals,
practicing things that remind us of the Eucharist,
it’s because (as Justin notes) they’ve copied them
from Christianity, not the other way around.

No less remarkable is the lack of serious debate

that we see about the Eucharist. What I mean is
that these are not just three theologians, but three
eyewitnesses to a much broader belief system.
Ignatius doesn’t tell the Smyrnaeans that they ought
to believe in the Real Presence, but writes with the
understanding that they already do, and that he can
point to the Gnostics’ rejection of the Real Presence
as grounds to treat them as excommunicated. Justin
says not how the Mass ought to look, but how it
does look. And Irenaeus treats belief in the Real
Presence as such a universally accepted doctrine
that he argues the following:

Then, again, how can they [the Gnostics]

say that the flesh, which is nourished with
the body of the Lord and with his blood,
goes to corruption, and does not partake
of life? Let them, therefore, either alter
their opinion, or cease from offering the
things just mentioned. But our opinion is You can order your copy today at
in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Shop.Catholic.Com
Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.clxix
Enter Promo Code EARLY at
Given the radical nature of Jesus’ eucharistic Checkout to save 25%
teaching, we might expect more controversy
than we find. After all, the first hearers of Christ’s
eucharistic teaching responded, “This is a hard
saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:63), and it is
understandable that many modern Protestants have
the same reaction. But the early Christians seem to
have not only accepted this “hard saying,” but built
their lives (and their theology, and their ecclesial
communion) around it.

Did you enjoy this excerpt on the Real Presence

from Joe Heschmeyer’s new book, The Early
Church Was the Catholic Church? There’s so much
more to learn in this great new book!