top of page

The Eucharist During the Period of the Great Councils (A.D. 325–500)

Explore the origins of the Holy Eucharist through different writers of Church History.

INTRODUCTION

Section 1: A New Era in Church History
Section 2: The Four Great Ecumenical Councils
Section 3: Important Writers of the Period
Section 4: General References to the Body and Blood of Christ
Section 5: Symbolic Language
Section 6: The Significance behind Symbolic Language
Section 7: Heightened Efficacy of the Elements
Section 8: Key Takeaways

Section 9: How to Explain this to Someone Else

Darwell Stone argues that the evidence from the fourth and fifth centuries reveals a consistent belief in the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ. While the Fathers occasionally described the consecrated elements as "symbols," "figures," or "antitypes," Stone maintains that these terms did not signify a merely symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. Instead, they were often employed alongside explicit affirmations of Christ's real presence. He also shows that the Fathers increasingly stressed the transformative effect of the consecration, demonstrating a growing theological explanation of Christ's sacramental presence.

A new era in church history

The Council of Nicaea (325) marks the beginning of one of the most significant theological periods in Christian history.

Unlike the previous centuries, Christians were no longer generally persecuted. Instead, Christianity enjoyed imperial support after Constantine. This new political climate gave the Church freedom to gather councils, debate doctrine, and define its beliefs with greater precision.

​

Stone observes several defining characteristics of this period:

  • The Church exchanged persecution for imperial favor.

  • The greatest dangers became doctrinal confusion rather than physical suffering.

  • The Church had moved farther away from the Apostolic Age.

  • Ecumenical councils became common.

  • Theology became increasingly systematic.

​

Most importantly, the Church devoted extraordinary attention to understanding the Incarnation.

The Four Great Ecumenical Councils

AD 325:

Council of Nicaea (325)

Christ is truly God.

AD 451:

Christ possesses two complete natures—divine and human.

AD 381:

Council of Constantinople

Christ possesses true humanity.

AD 431:

Christ is one divine Person.

Because the Church was carefully defining who Christ is, theologians also began asking:

  • How is Christ present in the Eucharist?

  • What happens during consecration?

  • What exactly do Christians receive in Holy Communion?

Important Writers of the Period

Stone intentionally gathers evidence from both halves of the Christian world so that the doctrine cannot be dismissed as merely local or regional.

Easter Fathers

Council of Nicaea

Adamantius

Eusebius of Caesarea

St. Athanasius

Serapion

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Gregory of Nazianzus

Gregory of Nyssa

St. John Chrysostom

Apostolic Constitutions

Macarius of Egypt

Macarius Magnes

Cyril of Alexandria

Theodoret

Western Fathers

Council of Arles

Hilary of Poitiers

Optatus

Ambrose

Author of De Sacramentis

Jerome

Augustine

Leo the Great

Gelasius

General References to the Body and Blood of Christ

Council of Nicea - St. Athanasius - St. Macarius - Roman Writer - Leo the Great

Stone begins with the simplest kind of evidence. Many writers simply speak of the Eucharist as Christ's Body and Blood without attempting any explanation. This language appears naturally throughout the fourth and fifth centuries. The dominant language throughout the Church is remarkably straightforward: Christians receive​ Christ's body and blood without extended philosophical explanation.

​

​

Council of Nicaea

The Council refers to Communion simply as

 

"the body of Christ."

 

There is no attempt to explain how Christ is present.

The Council simply assumes it.

​

St. Athanasius

Throughout his writings Athanasius repeatedly refers to

the Blood of Christ,

the Body of Christ, 

receiving the Body of the Word.

 

Examples include:

"It is only to you who preside over the Catholic Church that it pertains to administer the blood of Christ."

"...not partaking of the body of some man or other but receiving the body of the Word Himself."

​

 

St. Macarius

Macarius likewise writes

"Those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord."

 

Notice the two realities held together:

  • visible bread

  • true participation in Christ's flesh

​

Roman Writer (Questions on the Old and New Testaments)

​

The Eucharist is described as

"the reality" to which the manna pointed.

​

Melchizedek's bread and wine become prophetic foreshadowings of Christ's Eucharist.

​

Leo the Great

Leo repeatedly speaks of

  • the Body of Christ

  • the Blood of Christ

  • Communion transforming believers into Christ.

 

He writes "Nothing else is brought about by the participation of the body and blood of Christ than that we pass into that which we receive."

 

Symbolic Language

​​​Supporting Quotations the Author Uses:

​

Adamantius

"He gave the images in the bread and the cup..."

​

Eusebius

Christ gave "the symbols of the divine dispensation."

​

Serapion

The bread is "the likeness of the holy body."

​

Cyril of Jerusalem

The communicant receives "the body in the figure of bread"

and "the blood in the figure of wine."

 

Gregory Nazianzen

The Eucharist consists of "the antitypes of the precious body or blood."

 

Augustine

Jesus "did not hesitate to say, 'This is My body,' when He gave the sign of His body."

What Writers Used Symbolic Language?

​

Adamantius

Eusebius

Serapion

Cyril of Jerusalem

Gregory Nazianzen

Apostolic Constitutions

Macarius

Theodoret

Augustine

De Sacramentis

The significance behind symbolic language

Did They Mean "Merely Symbolic"?

Stone answers No.

He gives four reasons.

​

Reason One:

Some expressions occur before consecration.

Therefore they cannot describe the completed Eucharist.

​

Reason Two:

Cyril uses the same words elsewhere for biblical "types."

Joshua is called a "figure" of Christ.

The bronze serpent is called a "figure" of the Cross.

These are real historical events pointing toward greater realities.

​

Reason Three: 

Theodoret and the Apostolic Constitutions call the Eucharist a symbol...

yet immediately afterward identify it as

the Body and Blood of Christ.

Thus, symbol and reality coexist.

​

Reason Four: 

Macarius Magnes condemns those who argued

 

"It is not a figure... but really the body and blood of Christ."

This indicates that some people were reducing the Eucharist to mere symbolism, and Macarius explicitly rejects that interpretation.

​​

​

Stone's point is not that symbols are absent. Rather, the Fathers often understood a symbol to be a sacred sign that truly communicates the reality it signifies. Modern readers frequently impose a much weaker definition upon ancient texts.

Heightened Efficacy of the Elements

Stone now introduces another strand of fourth-century theology.

​

Instead of asking

"What substance changes?"

these Fathers ask

"What does God's invocation accomplish?"

​

Comparison between cyril and pagans

Cyril of Jerusalem - Cyril compares three different invocations.

Pagan Invocation - Food offered to idols becomes profaned through demonic invocation.

​

Christian Consecration

​

Before the invocation: the elements are "simple bread and wine."

After the invocation: "the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ."

 

Why This Comparison Matters

 

Cyril argues that if pagan invocation changes the religious character of idol sacrifices,then certainlyGod's invocation changes the Eucharistic gifts.The emphasis falls upondivine actionconsecrationsanctificationrather than philosophical explanation.

Key takeaways

  1. The Great Councils encouraged greater doctrinal precision.

  2. The Fathers consistently speak of receiving Christ's Body and Blood.

  3. "Symbol" did not necessarily mean "mere symbol."

  4. Consecration was understood to effect a real change in the Eucharistic gifts.

  5. Stone argues that the fourth and fifth centuries exhibit continuity with earlier Christian belief while showing increased theological development.

how to explain this to someone else.

The Socratic method is especially effective for teaching Church history because instead of telling students what Stone concludes, you guide them to discover his argument from the evidence. Stone himself builds his case by presenting quotations from the Fathers and then asking, in effect, "What do these statements imply?"

​

Opening Question:

 

If you wanted to know what the fourth-century Church believed about the Eucharist, where would you look?

​

Allow students to answer.

Guide them toward:

  • Church Fathers

  • Councils

  • Liturgies

  • Sermons

  • Letters

​

Then say: "That is exactly what Darwell Stone does. Rather than beginning with conclusions, he examines the historical evidence."

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Question 1

​

Why were the fourth and fifth centuries important?

Ask: What major event happened in A.D. 325?

(Student: Council of Nicaea.)​

Follow-up: Why would doctrinal discussions become more detailed after Nicaea?​

​

Possible answers:

  • Less persecution

  • More time for theological study

  • Councils defining doctrine

  • Heresies requiring answers

​

Then summarize: "Stone argues that because the Church was defining the doctrine of Christ, it also began speaking more carefully about the Eucharist."

​

Question 2

​

What language do the Fathers actually use? 

Instead of telling students, show quotations.​

Example:

"Those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord."​

Ask: What is Macarius calling the Eucharist?​

Students: "The flesh of the Lord."​

Next quotation:

"...receiving the body of the Word Himself."​ 

Ask: Does Athanasius sound as though he believes Christians receive Christ Himself?​ 

Students discover: Yes.

Continue with Leo.​

Ask: How many different writers have now referred to the Eucharist as Christ's Body and Blood?​

Students begin noticing the pattern.

​

Question 3

​

Then why do some Fathers call it a symbol?​

Read Eusebius.

"...the symbols of His body..."​

Ask: Does the word "symbol" today usually mean "only a reminder"?​ 

Students: Usually yes.

Then ask: Should we assume Eusebius means exactly what a twenty-first-century reader means?

Students begin thinking historically.

​

Question 4

​

Read another quotation.

Macarius Magnes says: "It is not a figure... but really the body and blood of Christ."​

Ask: If everyone understood "figure" the same way, why would Macarius correct certain people?​

Students usually answer.

Because some were using the word differently.​

Then ask: Does that suggest the word "figure" could have more than one meaning?

Exactly.

​

Question 5

​

Read Augustine.

"The Lord did not hesitate to say, 'This is My body,' when He gave the sign of His body."​

Ask: Does Augustine stop there?​

Students read further.

He also says: "...gives us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink."​

Ask: Can Augustine use symbolic language while also affirming Christ's true gift?

Students discover:Yes.

​

Question 6

​

What changes during consecration?

Read Cyril.​

Before invocation: "simple bread and wine"

After invocation: "the bread becomes the body of Christ..."​

Ask: According to Cyril, what causes the change?​

Students: The invocation.​

Then ask: Is Cyril trying to explain how the change happens, or is he emphasizing that God acts during consecration?​

Students recognize: The emphasis is on God's action.

​

Question 7

​

What conclusion would you draw?​

Instead of giving Stone's conclusion, ask: If Athanasius, Leo, Cyril, Macarius, Augustine, and the Council of Nicaea all speak this way, what picture of fourth-century Eucharistic belief begins to emerge?

Allow discussion.

Stone, Darwell. A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909.

bottom of page