Scholarly Opinions On Church Fathers, Ignatius Of Antioch And Origin

1088 Words3 Pages

Scholarly Opinions Two notable Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch and Origin, had very distinct views of the Eucharist, yet contrasting. First, Ignatius saw the Eucharist as the center of worship because it stressed the focus of the presence of the saving power of Jesus. Ignatius stressed three main points: Ignatius connects the physical elements of the Lord’s Supper with the physicality of Jesus’ body. “Ignatius finds it impossible to take the bread as the flesh of Christ at the ritual and yet claim that Christ had no physical body (as Docetism taught).” Ignatius also saw the one cup and the one bread of the Lord’s Supper as symbols of the unity there is in Christ. Lastly, Ignatius made famous the phrase “the medicine of immorality” when referring to the bread of the Lord’s Supper. He saw the Eucharist as a healing and cleansing power for the human soul. He understood that the presence of Christ was in the rite and thus in the union of communion. Finally, Origin focused on two models of understanding the progression of the Eucharist. The first was that Jesus at the Last Supper with his disciples. Gamel says “In this model, a line can be drawn from the Jewish Passover meal to the Last Supper of Jesus to the meals of the earliest Christians and to reports of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament.” The emphasis here is on the fact that Jesus used a Graeco-Roman model to be introduced to the Christian tradition. Origin’s second model states the “New Testament accounts of the Last Supper are etiological in nature—that is, they explain the origin of communal meals in the early church, but they are not historical.” This model teaches that the transition from the Last Supper model to the current liturgical models was a slow and natu... ... middle of paper ... ...c and Pentecostal churches see the Eucharist as somehow important, but with not a lot of meaning. In fact, most would not even know the term Eucharist. The purpose of this research was to draw a conclusion as to the validity and significance of the Eucharist by examining the purpose ascribed to it in the Early Church. Unfortunately, the conclusion that was drawn was not as conclusive as was hoped. The conclusion that is drawn, it that the Eucharist is what one makes it. If there is a deep spiritual meaning in it for one church, and there is a deep sense of importance that is communicated in a meaningful and inspirational way, then that church will place its importance higher than most. But unfortunately in the Pentecostal Church specifically, it is an afterthought connected to the traditions of liturgy that hold little more meaning than foot washings or circumcision.

Open Document