Refuting A Poor Protestant Argument
I know the arguments from the Protestant side well because I hailed them for so many years, and when my friend sent me this article. Before even opening it, I knew what I was about to read — a bunch of early church quotes removed from the whole that tried to show they didn’t teach transubstantiation.
https://blog.tms.edu/did-the-early-church-teach-transubstantiation
Before I refute this argument, if I may say so, definitively…I want to point out a few things prior to beginning.
No, the Early Church didn’t teach Transubstantiation because the term wasn’t used but others were.
Yes, they taught that it was a Symbol, and so did Jesus.
The question IS NOT whether it was a symbol, but merely only a symbol.
The question IS whether or not Jesus is PRESENT in the Eucharist.
So, this article quotes mines as many early church fathers as it can grab showing them call the Eucharist a “symbol”. We’ve established that the Church knows it’s a symbol, Jesus himself said it was a memorial, a symbol. However, this goalpost is useless because we affirm that it’s a symbol. The issue isn’t that, it’s whether or not it’s ONLY a symbol with no other means and whether or not Christ is actually present.
You’ll see quickly why the article from TMS is…lacking (I’d like to call it garbage but I won’t…but I just did).
The article starts by quoting 1 Corinthians 11:23–26, yet stops before Paul condemns anyone who wrongly takes the Eucharist. If it was a symbol, how can one wrongly take of it? If it’s ONLY a symbol, how can someone bring death to themselves by wrongly taking it?
The Irony
The author uses Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, Augustine, and Justin Martyr. (He actually has the innards to use Ignatius of Antioch as if that man wasn’t ordained by Peter and his writings aren’t wholly catholic)
You can go to the article if you wish to see the quotes that uses but I will post one here so you gather the idea of the goalpost:
The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
He goes onto say in the article that Tertullian wrote:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
“Tertullian's explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ's physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian's explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.”
Let us take that light and shine it upon the real question — is Jesus present in the symbol that He commanded of us to partake in?
Ignatius of Antioch, writing in about AD 106 to the Roman Christians, says: "I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterward of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.”
If the Eucharist is a MERE symbol, with nothing supernatural about it, why does Ignatius call it incorruptible? The Flesh of Christ, which this man desires, is the heavenly bread, the manna, by which he partakes. Maybe symbols are incorruptible if related to Jesus. Doubtful.
Writing to the Christians of Smyrna in the same year, he warned them to "stand aloof from such heretics", because, among other reasons, "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."
So, stand away from heretics who deny that it’s not the flesh of our Saviour? But I thought Ignatius didn’t believe it was the flesh of our Saviour?
If you’re telling a group of Christians to stay away from those who deny “that the Eucharist be the flesh of our Saviour” it’s easily deduced that to Ignatius it’s not a mere symbol, but rather Christ is present within the said symbol.
In about 150, Justin Martyr, referring to the Eucharist, wrote in his First Apology: "Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, 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 food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Whoops, he just used a word relating to Transubstantiation. He just said transmutation. You weren’t supposed to see that, because if you were then the “honest” author of the Protestant article would have included it. However, instead, he quotes Justin by saying: Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
So once again, the author tries to make the goalpost that the Church DOES NOT teach that it’s a memorial or a symbol. To his apparent stupidity, he never thought to realize that the Church does teach that it’s a symbol, in which Christ is present. Therefore, taking Justin at his complete word on the matter, we can see that he too believed the means transmutes and our Lord really is present.
The article uses an unsourced variation of a quote from Tertullian, so here is the FULL and actual Tertullian quote:
"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. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us."
So, Tertullian is arguing against the idea that Jesus pretended (merely symbolized) that it was His body.
Also missing from this man’s article was the fact that "transelementation",[26] "transformation",[27] "transposing",
all appear in the fourth century from Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Nyssa, and others. Therefore, the idea is ancient, not new.
Finally, we arrive at the Augustine portion of this entire thing where, like so many Protestants, he attempts to formulate a very intense Catholic man (Augustine) into being something he is not.
He quotes Augustine: Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
Again, where are we (or the Catholic Church) saying it’s (1) not spiritual? (2) it’s not celebrated? (3) it’s not remembering? The whole of the argument is that Christ is present by which Augustine declares that the bread consecrated in the Eucharist actually "becomes" (in Latin, fit) the Body of Christ: "The faithful know what I'm talking about; they know Christ in the breaking of bread. It isn't every loaf of bread, you see, but the one receiving Christ's blessing, that becomes the body of Christ."
To summarize,
The Catholic Church teaches that it is a symbol, spiritual, BUT that Christ is present. The Early Church, when Scholarship is done honestly, affirms this as shown above, without doubt.
I do apologize if my tone in this article was rash, harsh, or abrash. I vehemently despise people who alter quotations and lack the integrity of near unbias research which is the definition of scholarship. I frown upon those who create arguments of straw, and fake goalposts, and create division within by doing such acts. Humble yourself, read honestly, research thoroughly, and allow yourself to be wrong — as someone who held to a “mere symbol” for 30+ years, I can firmly tell you that the Protestant abuse of the Early Church Fathers seemingly has no end.