Origen and Transubstantiation

Q. Did Origen advocate the Roman dogma of transubstantiation?

Origen (c. 184 - 253 A.D.):

So also the bread is the word of Christ made of that corn of wheat which falling into the ground yields much fruit. For not that visible bread which He held in His hands did God the Word call His body, but the word in the mystery of which that bread was to be broken. Nor did He call that visible drink His blood, but the word in the mystery of which that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of God the Word, or His blood, be but the word which nourishes and the word which gladdens the heart? Why then did He not say, This is the bread of the new covenant, as He said, ‘This is the blood of the new covenant’? Because the bread is the word of righteousness, by eating which souls are nourished, while the drink is the word of the knowledge of Christ according to the mystery of His birth and passion. (J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1862], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus XIII, Origenis in Matthæum Commentariorum Series, § 85, Col. 1734-1735). Here Trans. (Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [1909], Volume I, pp. 27-28). Here

And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist. (Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol. IV, Origen, Against Celsus, VIII.LVII). Here

 

Now, if “everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,” even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord.  And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. (Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol. IX, Origen, Commentary On Matthew, XI.14). Here

 

…“for if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.” Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as “not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,” of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify.  And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for “he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,” and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.” And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread.  And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, “For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.” (Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol. IX, Origen, Commentary On Matthew, XI.14). Here

“Take and eat”; and He shows when He nurtures them with this bread, that it is His own body, since He is the Word, which we have necessary both now, and when it shall be fulfilled in the kingdom of God: but now, indeed, it is not yet fulfilled, but then it is fulfilled, when we shall be prepared to receive the full Passover, which He came to fulfill, Who did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. And now indeed he fulfills it as by a glass in an allegory of fulfillment: but then face to face, when that shall come which is perfect. (J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1862], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus XIII, Origenis in Matthæum Commentariorum Series, § 86, Col. 1736). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], pp. 206-207). Here

John Ch. 6:

Acknowledge that they are figures, which are written in the sacred volumes; therefore as spiritual, not carnal, examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you. Not only in the old Testament is there a letter which killeth; but also in the new there is a letter which killeth him who does not spiritually consider it. For, if according to the letter you receive this saying, Except ye eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth. (In Levit. Hom. VII. n. 5.) see (J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1857], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus XII, Origenis in Leviticum Homilia VII, § 5, Col. 487). Here Trans. (Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, [1894], p. 691). Here see also 1864 Edition

Alternate Translation:

Know that they are figures written in the divine volumes and, for that reason, examine and understand what is said as spiritual and not as carnal. For if you receive those things as carnal, they wound you and do not sustain you. For even in the Gospels, it is "the letter" that "kills." Not only in the Old Testament is "the letter that kills" found; there is also in the New Testament "the letter that kills" that one who does not spiritually perceive what is said. For, if you follow according to the letter that which is said, "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood," this "letter kills." (Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 7.5.4-5) see (The Fathers of the Church, Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 1-16, Translated by Gary Wayne Barkley, [Catholic University of America Press, 1990], p. 146). Here

As another example, take the Lord's words, "The bread that I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." When " the Jews strove with one another saying , How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" we showed that the hearers were not so foolish as to suppose that the speaker was inviting the hearers to approach him and eat of his flesh. (Commentary on John, Bk. 20, § 387) see (The Fathers of the Church, Origen, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32, Translated by Ronald E. Heine, [Catholic University of America Press, 2012], p. 285). Here

But we are said to drink the blood of Christ not only in the rite of the sacraments, but also when we receive his words, in which are life, as he himself says: "The words that I have spoken are spirit and life." Thus, he himself was wounded, whose blood we drink, that is, we receive the words of his teaching. (Homilies in Numbers, Homily 16.9.2) see (Ancient Christian Texts, Homilies on Numbers, Origen, Trans. Thomas P. Scheck, [InterVarsity Press, 2009], p. 101). Here

What we are now saying is the flesh of the Word of God, but only if we set it forth not as “vegetables” for the weak or as the nourishment of "milk" for children. If we speak what is perfect, robust and strong, we are setting out the flesh of the Word of God for you to eat. For where there are mystical words, where there are doctrinal and solid words that are brought forth in a way that is filled with faith in the Trinity, when the mysteries of the spiritual law of the age to come are expanded on, once the “veil of the letter has been removed”; when the soul's hope is torn away from the earth and cast toward heaven and is located in those things that "eye has not seen nor ear heard nor have they ascended into the heart of man." All these things are the flesh of the Word of God. The one who is able to consume these things with a perfect understanding and with a purified heart truly offers the sacrifice of the Passover feast and celebrates the feast day with God and his angels. (Homilies on Numbers, Homily 23.6) see (Ancient Christian Texts, Homilies on Numbers, Origen, Trans. Thomas P. Scheck, [InterVarsity Press, 2009], p. 144). Here

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, “I baptize with water, but He that cometh after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”  To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, “Except ye drink My blood, ye have no life in you,” and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood. (Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol. IX, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, VI.26). Here

“And the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world.”  Again, we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to be those of truth, and are nourished by them.  We are not, however, to eat the flesh of the Lamb raw, as those do who are slaves of the letter, like irrational animals, and those who are enraged at men truly reasonable, because they desire to understand spiritual things; truly, they share the nature of savage beasts.  But we must strive to convert the rawness of Scripture into well-cooked food, not letting what is written grow flabby and wet and thin, as those do who have itching ears, and turn away their ears from the truth; their methods tend to a loose and flabby conduct of life.  But let us be of a fervent spirit and keep hold of the fiery words given to us of God, such as Jeremiah received from Him who spoke to him, “Behold, I have made My words in thy mouth like fire,” and let us see that the flesh of the Lamb be well cooked, so that those who partake of it may say, as Christ speaks in us, “Our heart burned by the way, as He opened to us the Scriptures.” Further, if it is our duty to enquire into such a point as the roasting of the flesh of the Lamb with fire, we must not forget the parallel of what Jeremiah suffered on account of the words of God, as he says: “And it was as a glowing fire, burning in my bones, and I am without any strength, and I cannot bear it.”  But, in this eating, we must begin at the head, that is to say, at the principal and the most essential doctrines about heavenly things, and we must end at the feet, the last branches of learning which enquire as to the final nature in things, or about more material things, or about things under the earth, or about wicked spirits and unclean demons. (Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol IX, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, X.13). Here

~ Soli Deo Gloria