Tuesday, May 28, 2024

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper and the development of doctrine

...there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth [century]. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 151 – bold emphasis mine)

The dictum that, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated", is masterfully applied by Newman to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Earlier in the book, he wrote:

...the statements of a particular father or doctor may certainly be of a most important character ; but one divine is not equal to a Catena. We must have a whole doctrine stated by a whole Church. The Catholic Truth in question is made up of a number of separate propositions, each of which, if maintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy. (Ibid., p. 14)

He then added that it is, “not enough to prove that one has held that the Son is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the Macedonian), and another that the Father is not the Son, (for so did the Arian), and another that the Son is equal to the Father, (for so did the Tritheist), and another that there is but One God, (for so did the Unitarian),” (Ibid. p.15). [I would add to Newman's list that is not enough to prove the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 'one God’, for so did the Modalists.]

The developed doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by two Ecumenical Creeds and numerous Church Fathers in the fourth century, was being ‘violated’ in many varying degrees and forms since apostolic times. It is notable the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, “there must be also heresies (αἱρέσεις) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”—1 Cor. 11:19.

Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity—which was openly attacked and violated since apostolic times—the doctrine of the Eucharist had no serious opponents and violations until the ninth century. It is worth reflecting once again on the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The fact that, “greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species”, was reached after the controversies/violations of the ninth and eleventh centuries, should not lead one to surmise that no development concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist took place in the preceding centuries. History clearly reveals that minor developments began after the passing of the apostles. However, what one will not find are direct, explicit denials of nonnegotiable affirmations found in the fully developed doctrine of the Eucharist—e.g. the Real Presence, substantial conversion of the bread and wine, and the sacrificial aspect.

Unlike the doctrines of God and Christology, one will not find extensive treatments on the Eucharist before the ninth century. Irenaeus and Epiphanius briefly mention a few bizarre eucharistic rites performed by some of the Gnostic sects, but none of those aberrations found any acceptance in the Catholic churches (i.e. churches that could trace their origins via apostolic succession). History forces one to conclude that exhaustive works on the Eucharist were not needed in the centuries that preceded the Eucharistic controversies of the ninth and eleventh centuries. This fact must be kept in mind when one examines the relatively few mentions of the Eucharist as found in the writings of the Church Fathers.

I began this post with Newman's thoughts on the development of doctrine, with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity functioning as the primary model for his thesis. I shall end with some of his assessments on the Eucharist; from his esteemed pen we read:

One additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others: —I betake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist ; I have no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament contains ; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on which it is assured to me. "The Presence of Christ is here, for It follows upon Consecration ; and Consecration is the prerogative of Priests ; and Priests are made by Ordination ; and Ordination comes in direct line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every link in our chain is safe ; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a right form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great Gift." Here the question rises in me, "Who told you about that Gift?" I answer, "I have learned it from the Fathers : I believe the Real Presence because they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it 'the medicine of immortality :' St. Irenaeus says that ' our flesh becomes incorrupt, and partakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,' as 'being nourished from the Lord's Body and Blood ;' that the Eucharist ' is made up of two things, an earthly and an heavenly :' perhaps Origen and perhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord's Body, but His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken, of those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 23 – bold emphasis mine)


Grace and peace,

David

10 comments:

Ian Miller said...

Excellent as always David!

Didn't entirely understand how development went hand-in-hand with the Eucharist but it makes sense now. Indeed if the belief wasn't contested then there would be no defined doctrine yet, it was just assumed people knew what it was. Can't wait for the next installment!

David Waltz said...

Hi Ian,

Your gracious comments are appreciated. I need to thank you and Noah for prompting me to look into the Eucharist and Kauffman's musings. I was unaware of the depth and breadth of the literature that has been published on this important doctrine. My ongoing studies have been informative and rewarding, yet I feel I have only scratched the surface on this topic. Hope and pray that the Lord will continue to allow me the time and grace to dig even deeper into this wellspring of knowledge.


Grace and peace,

David

Ian Miller said...

Hi David,

I agree with you - Mr. Kauffman has certainly challenged my faith recently but it has only strengthened because of it.

A side note:

I found this post of yours from 2010 (http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/01/solemn-announcement-but-with-no-thanks.html) - is this a position you still hold?

Blessings

David Waltz said...

Good morning Ian,

The short answer to your question is, no.

The longer version is that through objective, deep and prayerful study I have been able to resolve those issues that I had sincere difficulties with.

One example is Thomas G. Guarino’s book, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Doctrine, which has been extremely helpful for me concerning John Henry Newman and the development doctrine [see my review here].

If you have further questions, please feel free to share them with me.


Grace and peace,

David

Ian Miller said...

Glad to hear David! I will let you know if I have any questions. Look forward to the next installment!

Blessings

Rory said...

Hello David,

Somehow I missed this post until a few days ago. I had been, shall I say, disappointed, at the lack of evidence in the Fathers pointing to a clear, early Catholic expression of the Eucharist. No longer. I wasn't remembering my Newman.

I would add, that this illustrates something a little controversial. I made a comment to a Catholic friend recently where I suggested that we know in our days, more about the prerogatives of St. Peter as the Vicar of Christ, than did St. Peter himself. He did not argue, but I think it made him uncomfortable.

I think my statement was compatible with the idea expressed by Christ Himself to the Apostles, immediately preceding His Passion and Death:

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." (Jn 14:26)

Christ did not state for the Apostles all of the fruitful doctrine that would eventually spring from the sacred mysteries that Christ shared with them. But everything that is expressed by the Church later is derived from what Christ gave to the Apostles earlier. It was not God's will that the Church merely hold tight to fully developed dogmatic teachings in the Apostolic deposit of faith. Rather, through the Holy Spirit, acting upon the successors of the Apostles, the Church would enjoy greater clarity of the truths that Christ taught, as the centuries roll by, bringing to mind further implications to be discovered in the precious mysteries of faith as taught by the Apostles.

"I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." (Jn 16:12, 13)

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to comment.

I too sometimes forget to employ Newman's insightful reflections on the development of doctrine. So many troubling issues virtually vanish when I ask myself, 'What would Newman say".

I liked the followng you wrote:

>>Christ did not state for the Apostles all of the fruitful doctrine that would eventually spring from the sacred mysteries that Christ shared with them. But everything that is expressed by the Church later is derived from what Christ gave to the Apostles earlier. It was not God's will that the Church merely hold tight to fully developed dogmatic teachings in the Apostolic deposit of faith. Rather, through the Holy Spirit, acting upon the successors of the Apostles, the Church would enjoy greater clarity of the truths that Christ taught, as the centuries roll by, bringing to mind further implications to be discovered in the precious mysteries of faith as taught by the Apostles.>>

Amen brother!

Grace and peace,

David

Ian Miller said...

Hi David,

Any idea when the next post in this series will be posted?

In Christ, Ian

David Waltz said...

Hi Ian,

Thanks for your continued interest. I have been pondering and praying over what direction I should take with our topic at hand. Kauffman's musings will only have an impact on folk who have limited knowledge of the Church Fathers and doctrinal development. What Kauffman is unable to demonstrate is that any extant writings from the CFs contain an explicit denial that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The only explicit denials before the ninth century come from folk that even Kauffman would identify as heretics.

Anyway, do you have any suggestions as to the direction the thread should take?


Grace and peace,

David

Ian Miller said...

That’s a fair point David. I guess I was thinking you could look at his claims about the tithe being the sacrifice, or how some Fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian for instance) use the word “symbol.”

In Christ, Ian