If you read the controversy in St. John 6, you know of the revulsion that the Jews felt when Jesus told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. However, I found the following description from the Desert Fathers to be even more graphic on our use of bread and wine.
This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said: Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete he was deceived and said, “The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.”
Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, “Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.” The old man said, “it is I who have said that.” Then the old men exhorted him saying, “Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ.”
The old man said to them, “As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced.” So they said, “Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us.” The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed in these words, “Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ.” The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, “Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward.” God heard both the prayers.
At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold an angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child’s blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angel also cut the child in pieces. When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, “Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood.” Immediately the flesh which he held in his hand became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, “God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith. “Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labour.
So all three returned with joy to their own cells.
Interesting. There are stories like this about Eucharistic Doubters from the 11-15th centuries in the west. Usually they have a Baby or a man show up on the altar. Several later stories are memorialised in art work.
EX: Mass of St Gregory the Great/Dialogos
http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=560&handle=li
There are also many stories of the bloody flesh becoming bread when faith was finally confessed.
It’s generally understood in the west that such stories arose after the lay communion fell off and devolved into odd abuses: like “hearing” mass instead of participating and communicating such as needed to be corrected by the Reformation in the West. I find it interesting that your guys are actually partaking of the bread and wine rather than just watching.
Well, it sounds like generally understood just took a beating. The Desert Father story dates to before the expansion of Islam, to the time when the Sinai desert flourished with monasteries. And, the story reflects the deep Eucharistic piety present in the Desert Fathers who were very frequent participants.
Now, the story may have been picked up in the Middle Ages, and re-written to fit the deteriorating Eucharistic situation of that time. But, the original point of the story was to resolve the same argument that popped up in the Reformation, is it Body and Blood or is it symbolic only.
Is it not interesting that the story grows in the West after the Crusaders have visited the Middle East? If I had to make a probably correct guess, it would be that they must have heard many of the Desert Father stories while they were there.
The longer I am Orthodox, the more I realize how many Western “scholars” have only read the West and not the Greeks or the Desert Fathers. Therefore, they have a skewed notion of what happened in Christianity and why it happened. Like most of the West, they assume that Christianity is defined by the history and arguments of the West, missing the millions of believers in the East. Real Church history is much broader and more complex and harder to categorize.
I think you missed my point – it’s generally understood that these stories arose in the west as they were needed… but that doesn’t mean they didn’t come from the east! I like the idea that these stories traveled with the crusades. (Although I agree with you regarding many scholars lack of understanding of the East… hell, I see it all the time in other-wise educated pulpits)
One thing that is interesting, as I noted, was that these fathers actually partake of the Mysteries (as opposed to in the west where, in such stories, they just sit around looking at ’em). But the other thing that interests me greatly is the way that the same issue (symbolic or not) was *not* just a question in the Reformation, but also in the Patristic period.
Huw, are you saying that there is nothing new under the sun? Positively Solomonic! 🙂
We tend to forget that just about everything was thought about, debated, discussed, dialogued, in the patristic period. The implications of what Jesus and the apostles said were being extended into other areas of life. St. John comments at the end of his Gospel that his Gospel was written so that people might have life and get to know God. He also wrote that there so many things about which he could write that it would take many books.
In a sense, St. John is saying that he is leaving working out the implications of Our Lord Jesus Christ to others. Which is precisely what the Church did during the patristic period.
In a sense, St. John is saying that he is leaving working out the implications of Our Lord Jesus Christ to others. Which is precisely what the Church did during the patristic period.
Which is precisely what the Church continues to do – although I know you and I might disagree there 🙂
Yep, you are right, Huw, I disagree, but only in part. As new areas come up, such as technology, cloning, “safe” abortion, post-modernism, relativism, fascism, communism, globalized capitalism, jihadism, etc., the Church is forced to think through the implications of these new things in the light of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the writings, both Old Testament and New Testament.
Where I disagree with modernism and post-modernism is in areas such as the idea that the Church is always changing its mind. I find many of the arguments used to “prove” that the Church is always changing its mind to rely on a lot of language parsing. But, that is another topic.
Hi Fr. Ernesto,
This helps me understand your comment on Internet Monk a little more! Don’t think I would want to convert this story into a song and video either!
I should add, that no matter how we want to apply things today. We are left with a history that is very bloody, and sometimes very disturbing.
First time I hear of a Eucharistic miracle (provoked as usual by some doubt about real presence) in the East! Thank you!