Redemptive Suffering & the Early Church

In Part 1 of this series we looked at the Epistle of James’s revolutionary teaching on the value of suffering upon our souls, and in Part 2 we saw how St. Paul expands upon this insight to show how our sufferings also benefit the souls of others. In this final article we want to explore these apostolic insights were faithfully communicated to the next generation of Christians.

Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, wrote of suffering and martyrdom during his transport to Rome, on his way to die in the Colosseum (AD 110). Many of Ignatius’s statements echo Paul’s teaching on suffering. In Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians he wrote, “My spirit is in sacrificial service for the cross, which is a scandal to unbelievers [1 Cor 1:18]”; and he told the Magnesians, “If we do not willingly embrace dying for his passion, neither is his life in us [Rom 8:17].”[1] When Ignatius wrote to the Christians in Rome, he asked that they not attempt to intervene on his behalf: “Permit me to be an imitator of the sufferings of my God. If anyone possesses [Christ] in himself, let him consider what I want and let him suffer with me.” Like Paul, he saw his life being poured out as a “libation,” a drink offering (Phil 2:17; 2 Tim 4:6). He linked his martyrdom to the offering of Christ, re-presented to the Father in the Church’s Eucharist: “Permit me to be food for the beasts, through them I will reach God. I am the wheat of God and I compete through beasts’ teeth to be found the pure bread of Christ.”

Ignatius’s sacrifice consisted of more than the act of martyrdom. It had already begun in the mistreatment he suffered at the hands of his Roman captors (Rom 5:1). Kenneth Howell, in his masterful translation and commentary on Ignatius’s epistles, highlights the bishop’s use of antipsuchon, or “substitute soul.”[2] Appropriating Paul’s words to the Colossians, Ignatius knew that his suffering benefitted more souls than just his own. He told the Smyrneans: “My spirit and my bonds are your substitute soul”; and their bishop Polycarp, “I and my bonds that you love are your substitute soul in every way.” To the Trallians he wrote, “My spirit makes you pure not only now but also when I attain to God.” He expounded upon Paul’s theology of the mystical body in his letter to the Philadelphians, “My brothers, I am being completely poured out for love of you and with exceeding joy I try to make you secure. It is really not I but Jesus Christ who does so. In him, as a prisoner I am all the more afraid because I am still incomplete. However, your prayer will make me complete for God so that I may obtain a share in the lot where I received mercy.” Ignatius made it clear that it was Christ who accomplished all of this in his body. Union with Christ would make the Philadelphians’ prayer for Ignatius efficacious and his perseverance in suffering meritorious for them.

The early Church knew that God’s providence extended to every area of their lives. The Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (c. AD 100), directed readers to “accept as blessings the casualties that befall you, assured that nothing happens without God.”^[3] Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) taught that God made use of calamity to correct the erring; but he also recognized some sufferings as no more than the consequence of life in a fallen world: “[W]e are all, good and evil, contained in one household. Whatever happens within the house we suffer with equal fate, until, when the end of the temporal life shall be attained, we shall be distributed among the homes either of eternal death or immortality.” It is our union with Christ that injects meaning and purpose into these common sufferings.

The Church’s meditation upon suffering has continued down through the centuries. In the thirteenth century, for instance, St. Anthony of Padua sagely remarked, “God sends us afflictions for various reasons: First, to increase our merit; second, to preserve in us the grace of God; third, to punish us for our sins; and fourth, to show forth his glory and his other attributes.” In our own time, Pope St. John Paul II reflected deeply upon the subject in his apostolic letter Savifici Doloris, or On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering. John Paul was intimately acquainted with suffering. His mother died when he was only eight years old, and his father and brother before he turned twenty-one. He lived decades of his life under Nazi and Soviet occupation. He survived an assassin’s bullet and endured the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s disease. John Paul descended into some of the darkest experiential places known to man, only to discover that he was not alone; the Crucified was there, awaiting him:

Christ does not explain in the abstract the reason for suffering, but before all else he says: “Follow me! Come! Take part through your suffering in this work of saving the world, a salvation achieved through my suffering! Through my cross.” Gradually, as the individual takes up his cross, spiritually uniting himself to the cross of Christ, the salvific meaning of suffering is revealed before him. He does not discover this meaning at his own human level, but at the level of the sufferings of Christ. At the same time, however, from this level of Christ the salvific meaning of suffering descends to man’s level and becomes, in a sense, the individual’s personal response. It is then that man finds in his suffering interior peace and even spiritual joy.^[4]

This is the wisdom of the Cross (1 Cor 1:23–24)—the rich fruit borne of the Epistle of James’s admonition to “count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials” (1:2). The Church of the twenty-first century needs to re-appropriate this wisdom. Praise be to God, who gives generously to all who ask (James 1:5).

This article was adapted from James: Jewish Roots: Catholic Fruits (Angelico Press, 2021).

 

---

[1] Kenneth Howell, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna: A New Translation and Theological Commentary (Zanesville, OH: CHResources, 2009); all subsequent quotations from the epistles of Ignatius were taken from this source.

[2] Kenneth Howell, Ignatius of Antioch, 14.

[3] Johannes Quasten, ed., The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabus, the Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the Fragments of Papias, the Epistle to Diognetus, Ancient Christian Writers, trans. James A. Kleist (New York: Paulist Press, 1948).

[4] John Paul II, Savifici Doloris, 26.

Answers to More Questions about the Eucharist

A month ago, I posted an email question from a former Catholic and my response. He asked me to explain why the Eucharist wasn't an act of idolatry.  (You can read it here).  This morning he sent a follow up email.  His comments are in white, and mine in yellow.  Please keep this seeker in your prayers!

____________________________________

Dear Derek (name has been changed),

Thank you for your email.  I thought my response would be clearer if I responded to each part of your letter in turn.

Dear Shane,

Thank you for your reply.

I still feel you have left my question unanswered. The problem is how can a priest convert a piece of bread into the Body, blood soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus, the second person in the Trinity. I do believe in Transubstantiation - that one substance is changes into another but one substance i.e. bread is changed into the flesh of Christ but one substance is changed into two body and blood is not acceptable , but I fail to see however how does the soul and divinity come in.

Derek, I think if you go back and read your original question, you will discover that I actually did answer it, as stated.  Here you are raising new questions, more specific questions than you did before – and honestly, that’s quite exciting.  It is by really grappling with Christ’s teachings that we open ourselves to receiving all He has for us!

That you believe in Transubstantiation is wonderful, because it should make what I’m about to say a little easier to understand.  You said that you believe “bread is changed into the flesh of Christ but one substance,” not two, “body and blood.”  Excellent, because that is what the Church teaches.  And here is the next step:

Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, are joined together.  Where one is, there the whole Christ becomes present.  So if the bread’s substance is changed to that of Christ’s Body, His Blood, Soul, and Divinity must likewise be present there as well.  And if the substance of the wine is changed into that of His Blood, then His Body, Soul, and Divinity must be present there as well.  This is called concomitance. To say otherwise would be to say that Christ could be divided up.  No, He is a living Person, a Person both divine and human (body, blood, soul).We’re talking about something supernatural, it does not violate reason, but it is something above our powers of thought to completely comprehend.

God is spirit and we must worship him in spirit.

Yes, “in spirit and truth” (Jn.4:23)

In the book of Acts chapter 7:48, 17:24, it states that God does not live in temples built by man.

The Jewish people knew that the Creator of the universe could not be contained in building made of a stone (1 Kg.8:27).  No one knew this better than the God-Man, and yet Jesus reverenced the Temple as “My Father’s house” (Lk.2:49; Jn.2:16). So the transcendent God could make Himself present in a very unique way in a specific part of creation.

As I said in my original email response, with the Incarnation we have entered into a new way of relating to God. The Second Person of the Trinity joined a human nature, a soul and a body, to Himself. It is the human soul and body of God. So wherever that Body is, there the soul and divinity must be present as well.

So, in direct response to your citation of Acts 7:48 and 17:24 – no, the divine essence cannot be “pigeon-holed” in a temple made of stone, much less the entire created universe … and yet in Christ, “the fullness of Deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9).  And thus, we could say that God incarnate did live in a house in the village of Nazareth.  He seems to have lived in a house in Capernaum as well –  Derek, you must recognize this.  And God incarnate, Jesus, can also be present in our church buildings today in the Eucharist.

At the last supper when Christ says 'take eat this is my body' did he by his will and power create a mirrored image of himself or an entity apart and distinct from his real self that is from a piece of bread. this bread has now become his creation. First it was bread and now it is God, It is an offence against the 1st commandment.

No, not a mirror image of Himself; but an extension of His One Self. This is a rough analogy, because in the Eucharist we are talking about a supernatural extension; but in the natural sphere you can see how Christ “extended” Himself when He grew from an infant to a man. His infant Body and adult Body were one and the same.

The Host (Communion) exhibits no form of life nor is able to communicate. It is as if God is punished by imprisonment or solitary confinement unable to relate with all who receive him worthy or unworthy. This very thought of a mute God is absurd. We should not use imagination to say he speaks to me in communion.

Derek, take a step back and consider for a moment, what you already believe:  In the paragraph ahead you profess your belief that the Holy Spirit lives inside of you.  Good.  Is He a “mute God,” or do you hear an audible voice?  If you are hearing an audible voice, then you are among a very small minority among Christians.  I think most of us would say that the Holy Spirit does speak to us, but by bringing certain thoughts to our minds or causing us to recognize the significance of things. Is the Holy Spirit a prisoner within you? No, I wouldn’t characterize Him like that.

Consider the words of Christ in John 16:7- it is to your advantage that I go away because if I do not go the Holy Spirit will not come but if I go I will send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has the advantage of being with everybody at the same time.

In chapter 16, it explains how Christ will be with us and help us and he will be with us till the end of time.

He even reiterates in a little while - you will see me no more. The absence of his person , body, soul and divinity till the second coming is confirmed here. 

Derek, Jesus is most certainly not “absent” from the disciples.  Please go back and look at John 16 again.  In context, Jesus is talking about the change that will take place with His Passover to the Father; He will not be with them as He had been during the previous three years.  But He will continue to be with them – spiritually (Mt.28:20) and sacramentally in the Eucharist (Lk.24:30-31; note the use of the same four verbs here as at the Last Supper).

I would recommend meditating more deeply on the nature of the Trinity and what Jesus tells us in John, chapters 14-17.  “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (14:23) “I go away and I come to you” (14:28), “when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send you from the Father” (15:26).

We partake of one Loaf not a multiplication of the same loaf.

Yes, that is what we believe: these multiple loaves scattered throughout the world have been supernaturally joined to the One Loaf, Christ.  They can be joined to Him Whose Body is now outside of space and time as we understand it. 

We must remember the soul is not divisible, it cannot be replicated, duplicated in any way, so does the soul of Christ.

You can see the answer to this in what I shared above.

Please show me any scripture which confirms his presence of his body, soul and divinity in communion.

Happily. 1 Corinthians 11, beginning at verse 27:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹ For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. ³⁰ That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. ³¹ But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. ³² But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”

The Eucharist is no mere figure or image of Christ. To sin against the Lord’s Body and Blood in such a way that sickness and death are suitable chastisements, the Lord’s Body and Blood must truly be present. You are not convicted of assault because you ripped up a man’s photograph, but because you have wronged his actual person!

Also please let me know the official Catholic position on whether the body is a crucified body or the resurrected body of Christ.

The Church’s position is that it is Christ’s Body, as it exists right now, which is made present.  Because Christ is risen from the dead, it is His resurrected Body made present in the Eucharist.

God has put in place safeguards that we might not do and believe like what Catholics do and believe.

But Derek, what Catholics do and believe is what the Orthodox Church does and believes, and is exactly what all Christians did and believed up until the time of the Reformation. There are safeguards in place to keep us believing and doing the truths Jesus entrusted to the Apostles, but when a person rejects the teaching authority of the successors to the Apostles, the Pope and Bishops, they have rejected that safeguard. Do you really think that God would abandon His Church and allow it to believe in a heretical teaching from the time of the apostles until the Reformation?  Ridiculous.  God is a faithful Father.

I’ve shown you passages in the New Testament testifying to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, but have you not studied how these were understood in the early Church?  The Catholic Church did not create its faith in the Eucharist centuries later; it is what Christians have believed from the start! When we go back to the earliest Christian writings we have outside of the New Testament, the writings left to us by the men who were actually taught by the Apostles, this is what we find:

Ignatius, the disciple of the Apostle John and Bishop of Antioch, wrote in 110 A.D. that he desired “the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, Who was of the seed of David, and for drink, His Blood, which is love incorruptible.” He admonished the believers in Philadelphia, Asia Minor, to “use one Eucharist so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons.” To the Church in Smyrna, Ignatius wrote, 

“Take note of those who hold heterodox [or heretical] opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which comes to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

Our faith in the mysteries of God should not border on the ridiculous and absurd.

Ooh, but telling God what He can and cannot do out of love for us is the height of absurdity.  For one who limits God, the authentic Faith, taught to us by Christ and His Apostles, will always seem ridiculous.  That is what Paul wrote, “Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? …Jews demand a sign and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles …For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor.1:20-25).

Christ Himself, when He first spoke of the Eucharist, was met with jeers and rejection:

“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you … for my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed …” (Jn. 6:52-56). 

And John goes on to tell how, 

“Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’ …. After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him” (Jn.6:60,66).

Derek, why is it so hard to take Jesus at His word on the Eucharist? Is it because we cannot observe the change through our five senses or detect it with our most sensitive instruments? Our technology is finite – His power limitless! As the Creator, Jesus grasps matter much better than me or you. If He pronounced the bread and wine to be His Body and Blood then I have to believe He can make it so. Lets keep in mind, this is the same Person who said, “Let there be light…dry land…living creatures….man…woman” (Genesis 1-2). He showed Himself able to manipulate matter at will – multiplying the loaves, walking on water, even appearing and disappearing into thin air after His resurrection. And let’s not forget that this is the Body and Blood formed in the womb of Mary without sexual intercourse – talk about turning the laws of nature upside down! 

Thank You

You are welcome.  Derek, I hope you do not feel that I am being antagonistic.  What I want to help you see is how your objections are nothing novel or unexpected.  They are the same objections Protestant Christians have made throughout the last 500 years, and the answers to them are relatively simple.  Jesus waits for you in the Eucharist.  He wants to give Himself to you in a way so humble and loving that we hesitate to believe it is true.  But that’s what makes the Good News, so good! “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matt.11:28-29)

---

It's the Difference Btw. Talking on the Phone and Making Love

I have been under the weather this weekend.  That being the case, I didn't want to take a chance of passing my illness to others by attending Mass. Instead, I prayed from the Liturgy of the Hours, read today's Scripture readings, talked to God, and meditated with the Rosary.  It was time spent with God, and that is obviously fantastic. I realized however, that it wasn't the same as being at Mass.  An analogy occurred to me.  I recognize that it is imperfect, but it captures how I have come to think of my worship outside vs. inside the Eucharist: It's the difference between a husband and wife speaking by phone vs. making love.

It suffers, I know.  If you're familiar with this blog, then you know the profound reality I ascribe to even the simplest of prayers.  Jesus pours Himself out to the Father through our hearts, minds, and voices!  And yet, when we take part in the Eucharist, our prayer and union with Christ is raised up to a different, a higher plane.

In the Eucharist, Jesus gives Himself to us not just in a spiritual manner, and He gives us not just His teaching, but His very Self - His whole Self.  In the Eucharist we take the God-Man into us - His Divinity, His human Soul, His Body and Blood.  We receive Him into ourselves, as a bride receives her husband.  It is a manifestation of the mystery written of by St. Paul:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” [Genesis 2:24]. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:31-32)

It is the most intimate we can be with Jesus, this side of eternity. I remember how emphatic Jesus was about our need to receive Him in the Eucharist:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat [“phogein” in Greek, the usual verb for “eat”] the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you; he who eats [“trogein” in Greek, meaning “to munch or gnaw”] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.” (John 6:53-56, NIV)

Throughout the Old Testament the Passover and Temple sacrifices had united God and His people in the life of the sacrificial victim. God’s people had to take that life into themselves through a covenant meal. The New Covenant reality to which they pointed - the most powerful way we unite ourselves to Jesus' sacrifice - is the Eucharist. 

Look at what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Christ, our passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival. (1 Cor 5: 7-8) 

Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? ... The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:18,16) 

Whoever, therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor 11: 27-30)  

I know the early Church understood Jesus' words regarding the Eucharist just as literally as the Apostle Paul.  In 107 A.D., while awaiting martyrdom, Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch and disciple of the Apostle John) wrote:  

“I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, Who was of the seed of David, and for drink, His Blood, which is love incorruptible.”(Epistle to Romans)

"Take note of those who hold heterodox [or heretical] opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which comes to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans)

As hard as we might try, there's simply no way to rival or go beyond the Mass - it is Jesus and His Sacrifice made present upon the altar.  The Divine Bridegroom comes to make himself one flesh with His Bride ... and that's a union you just can't "phone in."

"He DROP KICKED ME into the Catholic Church" - St. Ignatius of Antioch

Check out this awesome video from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology's Matthew Leonard

If Wrong, We Catholics Are SERIOUS Heretics (Holy Thursday Reflection)

Being Holy Thursday, I am thinking about the Eucharist, and it struck me anew how earth-shattering our Eucharistic Faith truly is.  My high school theology teacher, Mr. Burns, nailed it, "After the priest prays Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood,” you don’t have bread and wine there anymore; it is Jesus!  People, you don’t fall on your knees in the kitchen when you pass by the Wonder Bread.  You go down on our knees in church because that’s not bread anymore, it is Jesus Himself!"

If we Catholics are wrong on this point, then we are not just making a simple mistake; we are guilty of the grossest kind of idolatry - of worshiping a piece of bread as God!   But that is our faith in the words of Jesus - our faith in His power to do absolutely anything!  Jesus said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat [“phogein” in Greek, the usual verb for “eat”] the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you; 
he who eats [“trogein” in Greek, meaning “to munch or gnaw”] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56, NIV)

The Apostle Paul took Jesus at His word.  Look at what Paul wrote the Corinthians:

"Whoever, therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

(1 Corinthians 11: 27-30)  

And the early Church understood Jesus and Paul every bit as literally as Catholics today.  Listen to my man Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, writing in 107 A.D.: 

“I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, Who was of the seed of David, and for drink, His Blood, which is love incorruptible.”(Epistle to Romans)

“Use one Eucharist so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons.”  (Epistle to Philadelphians)

"Take note of those who hold heterodox [or heretical] opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which comes to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans)

That's bold; we Catholics are "all in."  We are not simply another Christian denomination.  Either we have preserved the Faith established by Jesus, or we are idolaters.  For someone who truly wants to live as a disciple of Jesus, it is impossible to be indifferent to the claims made by the Catholic Church.  Either she is the Church founded by Jesus and the Eucharist is literally His body and blood, or she is misleading over a billion people.  But if she's right ... then it is the fullness of the Christian Faith.  Don't you think it's worth a serious study?