In his book, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Queenship, 2000), Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis, on p.283, cited Origen’s (185-254) Homilies on Exodus to support the claim that early Christianity held the same view of the Eucharist and the veneration thereof that is part of modern Catholic dogmatic theology:
“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the Divine Mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the Consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. (Sungenis gets this quote from vol. 1 section 490 of William Jurgens, ed. Faith of the Early Fathers [3 vols.])
Firstly, it should be noted that Origen was a Platonist; to read into his words a materialism that requires acceptance of Aristotelian understandings of “accidents” and “substance,” something antithetical to Platonism, would be putting the theological horse before the cart, so to speak, and to engage in eisegesis of Origen’s writings.
Secondly, when one examines the context of this homily, we see that it is set within a discussion of the Old Testament tabernacle, and how Origen wishes to be a part thereof, symbolically representing his wanting to be a true Christian, as well as other instances of symbolism and metaphor. To read into this passage the concept of Transubstantiation, especially in light of Origen’s acceptance of Platonism requires one to jettison any form of meaningful hermeneutic:
Lord Jesus, grant that I may deserve to have some memorial in your tabernacle. I would choose, if it be possible, that mine be something in that gold from which the mercy seat is made or from which the ark is covered or from which the candlestick and the lamps are made. Or if I do not have gold, I pray that I be found to offer some silver at least which may be useful in the columns or in their bases. Or may I certainly deserve to have some bronze in the tabernacle from which the hoops and other things are made which the word of God describes. Would that, moreover, it be possible for me to be one of the princes and to offer precious stones for the adornment of the cape and breastplate of the high priest. But because these things are beyond me, might I certainly deserve to have goats' hair in God's tabernacle, lest I be found barren and unfruitful in all things.
"Each one," therefore, "as he has understood in his heart" (cf. John 12:31). See if you understand, see if you retain, lest perhaps what is said vanish, and come to nothing. I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any small part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God's word than to have neglected his body?
They are ordered, therefore, to offer the first things, that is, the firstfruits. he who offers what is first by necessity has what is left for himself. See how much we ought to abound in gold and silver and all the other things which are ordered to be offered so that we might both offer to the Lord and have something left over for us. For first of all my mind ought to understand God and offer to him the firstfruits of its understanding so that when it shall have understood God well, it might consequently know the other things. Let speech also do this and all these things which are in us. (Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, trans. Ronald E. Heine, pp. 380-81 [URL])
While much more could be said, Origen’s comments in his homilies on Exodus cannot be cited as evidence of early Christians in his time period of holding to a form of “Real Presence” that is commensurate with the dogma of Transubstantiation as defined in 1215.
