Unfortunately, many of his followers and most Protestants have completely overlooked these “most authentic commentators” and now favor the more “relevant” (and less substantive) or the more alliterative ones. Maybe one reason they don’t like the Fathers is because their theology would have to change if they recognized the Fathers as the genuine Christian forebears that they are.
We will continue looking at The Didache.
Chapter 9:
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks. 9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. 9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. 9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever. 9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.
This chapter clearly presents an early form of liturgy. Most Pentecostals I know would be in absolute horror that such a thing could be so. “Liturgy? No way, that is too dead, too formal, too dry for us!” But that is what is being put forward in this passage. Written prayers to be used for a church service are contradictory to the extemporaneous type of prayers to which I am accustomed.
The idea that some have championed is that this kind of “dead, dry formality” came about only after the apostasy of the Church when Constantine made the church Catholic. This document flies in the face of that kind of thinking.
Another document from those days is the writing of St. Justin Martyr (ca. 100 to 165 A.D.). Let’s look at what he says on this subject:
“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. 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 to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” (First Apology, ch. LXV)
It is a surprise to some (no doubt) that they used wine but there is little to no doubt that they did indeed do that. So where did we get the tradition of not doing so? Not from the Early Church.
But the real shocker for the modern Pentes comes on the next chapter:
“And this food is called among us the 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. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; 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 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.” (First Apology, ch. LXVI)
No solely symbolic presence of Jesus? No just a memorial of his death? No, it teaches the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. And it uses the word “Eucharist,” which is so assiduously avoided by most Protestant types. He does not tell us how the bread and wine become “not as common bread and common drink” but he maintains that they certainly are “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
What can be drawn from this cursory examination is that the Early Church has some ideas that are radically different from our own. Now, we must ask ourselves, “Who is right?” We need to consider the source, the Scriptures, and why we believe what we do.
There are only two options left to us. Either we trust the Fathers, none of whom contradict the doctrine of the Real Presence, to interpret Scripture correctly. Or we trust later writers (16th century and after), our tradition, and our own private interpretive abilities to do so. If all of the “most authentic commentators” believed one way, it would seem incumbent upon us to find out what they believed. Should we not then align with the more trustworthy witnesses even if they don’t agree with our 500-year-old tradition? It makes one wonder.
