J
JIB
Guest
Why Protestant group first rejected the Eucharist/Real Presence? Lutherans and Anglicans believe in it if I’m not mistaken, so where did it all go wrong?
- Status
B
batman1973
Guest
Lutherans do, and I’m fairly certain the Anglicans do to. If I was to proffer a guess, probably the Baptists.
O
OxygenMan
Guest
Did the Bogomils and Cathars practice it?
M
mab23
Guest
I think it started with Zwingli and the Baptists but I could be wrong!
R
R_C
Guest
It is an ancient heresy!
Already the Church Father St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.), disciple of the apostle s. John, writes:
Already the Church Father St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.), disciple of the apostle s. John, writes:
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
So it was Catholics who first rejected it? 
C
cajunhillbilly
Guest
Yes they were the first to see it as just a memorial of the death of Christ. Even Calvin had a modified view of the Real Pesence. The Bogomils and Cathars were Gnostic groups and not at all remotely related to Zwingli or the Anabaptists/Baptists.
M
manualman
Guest
Older than that even. In John 6, Jesus had some followers simply walk away from him when he told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. And the first Eucharist hadn’t even happened yet!
Think about that. These people listened, believed and followed Jesus right up until he revealed the truth about the final and enduring sacrifice. No wonder people still reject it.
R
Rolltide
Guest
Luther was so appalled that Calvin saw the Eucharist as symbolic that they had a falling out and never spoke to each other again. Luther even joined the Catholic side at one point of the Thirty Years’ War to stop what he saw as someone who had gone too far.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Catholics ≠ GnosticsSo it was Catholics who first rejected it?
T
TimothyH
Guest
Yes, we can trace rejection of the Eucharist to the rejection of Jesus himself.
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. (John 6:60-66)
-Tim-
S
SteveVH
Guest
Where did you ever get the idea that Gnostics are Catholics? They were a heretical group condemned by the Church.So it was Catholics who first rejected it?
R
R_C
Guest
You are right!
uch:
B
benjohnson
Guest
There’s an amusing paraphrased quote I’ve heard attributed to Luther:
“I would rather drink blood with a Papist than wine with a Zwinglian.”
J
jrtrent
Guest
Regarding Anglicans, it may depend on how you define “real presence.” From Article 28:
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. . .
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
This is very similar to the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 29, part 7) which follows the teaching of this sacrament held by Calvin:
Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
S
Symphorian
Guest
The author of the latter part of Article 28 was Edmund Guest (1518-1577), Bishop of Rochester and later, Salisbury. +Guest was Reformed theologically. Richard Cheyney (1513-1579), Bishop of Gloucester, refused to subscribe to this article (and was briefly excommunicated) on the grounds that the word “only” denied the presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament. Guest replied that “it did not exclude the presence of Christ’s body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof.”
J
jrtrent
Guest
So Anglicans believe in the “real presence,” just not in the same way as some others do. Maybe the Declaration on Kneeling would be helpful to some non-Anglicans:
“Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue; yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.”
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
I have seen Lutherans roundly criticized on some Reformed boards because of our “idolatrous behavior” when kneeling to receive the Eucharist. So as was mentioned earlier, we haven’t rejected it - although the term “adoration” would not normally come to mind for Lutherans. We assume the posture as we would if Jesus was visible to us in His person.
K
kwortham
Guest
Idolatrous behavior would be the baptist outlook on what Christ said. Christ was both God and man, spirit and body. For Christ to have been figuratively stating that the bread was His body as baptists claim, would be for Christ to claim that the bread made by work of human hands was God. Therefore, Christ would be an idolater for saying take, eat for this is My Body. If Christ committed idolatry, then He sinned and no one has any hope of eternal life. However, if the bread is by process of transubstantiation made into the body of Christ, then Christ could say take and eat, this is my body without declaring a piece of bread an idol.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
I thought of this, but on reflection considered they were rejecting the faith as a whole, not just the real presence, yet still partaking of the “communion” meal.
- Status