Has the Real Presence historically always been contentious?

[TK421]

In the Gospel, where the doctrine of the Real Presence is introduced by Jesus, this was a hard teaching to the Jews listening to it. Can we assume that the difficulty of this teaching is historical or universal? The Jews had a very strong aversion to cannibalism, and when hearing Jesus, some of them would have misunderstood his words as such (the Romans did likewise: one of the propaganda pieces against Christians in the 1st and 2nd century was specifically related to rumors of cannibalism).

I came into the Church in 2014 and this was one of the easiest doctrines to accept.I just figure that God is God and he can do whatever he wants, and that’s the end of it. Not to say that I’m some great person that has everything easy because as a sinner, the Church challenges me to be a better man on a daily basis and I’ve come to accept the fact that it will continue to do so until the last day of my life. But the Real Presence, in particular, has never been an issue and was never an issue, and I’ve heard similar from others. It was even something that readily helped convince me of Catholicism’s claims.

Today it is also a contentious issue on almost all fronts: the majority of protestants, other religions, and secular people.

What about in the Medieval period? Do we have evidence that the Real Presence was contentious in some way during this time? This would be prior to Protestantism but either before or after the schism of the east and west (of which the Real Presence was not an issue).

 

[gus]

I think it was Dr Ray Gurendi who is a convert to Catholism who said this doctrine is so foreign and repulsive to many the only possible reason it has been taught and survived is thait it is true. The Itellectual Protantant leaders dismissed this teaching almost immediately.
Precisely because because it is one teaching of Jesus thst actually requires Faith.
Sadly many who claim to be be Catholic especially cradle ones have also dismissed this teaching or nuanced it to make it more palatable…
I find it’s the Protantant converts many who came to the Church with a deep Christain relationship who are the most appreciative of the Body of Christ
Maybe God in his wisdom allowed Protestantism to exist to provide the faithful who will eventually save his Church .

 

[Nita]

As Fr. Hardon notes in this article, *"For the first thousand years of Christian history there was no serious challenge to the Real Presence. Then Berengarius of Tours (999-1088) attacked the Church’s doctrine by claiming that Christ could not be simultaneously in heaven and in the Blessed Sacrament. He was condemned by the pope and required to profess his faith in the Real Presence. " *piercedhearts.org/eucharistic_heart/eucharistic_saints_hardon.htm

Here’s a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Berengarius:
newadvent.org/cathen/02487a.htm

 

[JimG]

As Fr. Hardon notes in this article, *"For the first thousand years of Christian history there was no serious challenge to the Real Presence. Then Berengarius of Tours (999-1088) attacked the Church’s doctrine by claiming that Christ could not be simultaneously in heaven and in the Blessed Sacrament. He was condemned by the pope and required to profess his faith in the Real Presence. " *piercedhearts.org/eucharistic_heart/eucharistic_saints_hardon.htm

Thanks for that reference. It is true that the doctrine of the real presence was never questioned for a thousand years of Church history.

 

[Jennifoo]

In the Gospel, where the doctrine of the Real Presence is introduced by Jesus, this was a hard teaching to the Jews listening to it. Can we assume that the difficulty of this teaching is historical or universal? The Jews had a very strong aversion to cannibalism, and when hearing Jesus, some of them would have misunderstood his words as such (the Romans did likewise: one of the propaganda pieces against Christians in the 1st and 2nd century was specifically related to rumors of cannibalism).

I came into the Church in 2014 and this was one of the easiest doctrines to accept.I just figure that God is God and he can do whatever he wants, and that’s the end of it. Not to say that I’m some great person that has everything easy because as a sinner, the Church challenges me to be a better man on a daily basis and I’ve come to accept the fact that it will continue to do so until the last day of my life. But the Real Presence, in particular, has never been an issue and was never an issue, and I’ve heard similar from others. It was even something that readily helped convince me of Catholicism’s claims.

Today it is also a contentious issue on almost all fronts: the majority of protestants, other religions, and secular people.

What about in the Medieval period? Do we have evidence that the Real Presence was contentious in some way during this time? This would be prior to Protestantism but either before or after the schism of the east and west (of which the Real Presence was not an issue).

:tiphat: Hello, fellow convert. I converted to the Catholic Church in 1997. The doctrine of the Real Presence was an easy one for my to accept, as well. When I read John chapter 6, the Catholic Church’s interpretation seemed to be the most logical. I never understood it as cannibalism. I thought the same as you, that God can do anything He wants and He chose to institute this Sacrament to nourish His people on their journey to eternity.

Over the years, I’ve noticed that an in-law who is a lapsed Catholic, seems to be repulsed by the Eucharist. I’ve never directly asked her as the topic of anything religious is very contentious in our family, no matter how charitably spoken of.

I know that several Protestant denominations are very offended by this doctrine. Some say that it’s impossible that God would do this, so Catholics are worshipping a piece of bread.

 

[Kanade]

In the Gospel, where the doctrine of the Real Presence is introduced by Jesus, this was a hard teaching to the Jews listening to it. Can we assume that the difficulty of this teaching is historical or universal? The Jews had a very strong aversion to cannibalism, and when hearing Jesus, some of them would have misunderstood his words as such (the Romans did likewise: one of the propaganda pieces against Christians in the 1st and 2nd century was specifically related to rumors of cannibalism).

I came into the Church in 2014 and this was one of the easiest doctrines to accept.I just figure that God is God and he can do whatever he wants, and that’s the end of it. Not to say that I’m some great person that has everything easy because as a sinner, the Church challenges me to be a better man on a daily basis and I’ve come to accept the fact that it will continue to do so until the last day of my life. But the Real Presence, in particular, has never been an issue and was never an issue, and I’ve heard similar from others. It was even something that readily helped convince me of Catholicism’s claims.

Today it is also a contentious issue on almost all fronts: the majority of protestants, other religions, and secular people.

What about in the Medieval period? Do we have evidence that the Real Presence was contentious in some way during this time? This would be prior to Protestantism but either before or after the schism of the east and west (of which the Real Presence was not an issue).

Hello, I’m also a convert

I didn’t have a huge problem with accepting the RP (understanding how it happens is a different matter!). As an Anglican, I’d started to wonder what the point of communion was, and what it did. If it was simply a memorial, I wondered why we bothered and why it has been so central to Christian worship for millennia (why not wash feet every week?) When I really looked again at what Jesus said about it, the simplest explanation was that he literally meant this is my body and blood.

Historically, the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church (1562) state:

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 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.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

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.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Modern Anglicans have a huge spectrum of views on it though. Some believe in the RP, others would happily take unconsumed communion bread home to have for lunch.

 

[TK421]

As Fr. Hardon notes in this article, *"For the first thousand years of Christian history there was no serious challenge to the Real Presence. Then Berengarius of Tours (999-1088) attacked the Church’s doctrine by claiming that Christ could not be simultaneously in heaven and in the Blessed Sacrament. He was condemned by the pope and required to profess his faith in the Real Presence. " *piercedhearts.org/eucharistic_heart/eucharistic_saints_hardon.htm

Here’s a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Berengarius:
newadvent.org/cathen/02487a.htm

Thank you. Right on the money.

 

[TK421]

:tiphat: Hello, fellow convert. I converted to the Catholic Church in 1997. The doctrine of the Real Presence was an easy one for my to accept, as well. When I read John chapter 6, the Catholic Church’s interpretation seemed to be the most logical. I never understood it as cannibalism. I thought the same as you, that God can do anything He wants and He chose to institute this Sacrament to nourish His people on their journey to eternity.

Over the years, I’ve noticed that an in-law who is a lapsed Catholic, seems to be repulsed by the Eucharist. I’ve never directly asked her as the topic of anything religious is very contentious in our family, no matter how charitably spoken of.

I know that several Protestant denominations are very offended by this doctrine. Some say that it’s impossible that God would do this, so Catholics are worshipping a piece of bread.

The cannibalism claims are still around, but as far as I know that was mostly a huge issue in the early Church, partly because it was offensive to the Jews, and partly because of propaganda from Roman sources trying to disperse the new religion. I think modern Protestants would have issue with it because they see the idea as superfluous. You have Jesus who offers forgiveness for sins, and you ask him for it and you receive it. Ergo, how does Eucharist fit into the picture? Or at least, that would be a common protestant understanding. Mainstream protestant ideas of union with Christ are purely spiritual rather than the union of both spirit and matter in Catholicism. I think it was St Augustine who said that with typical food, you eat it, and that food becomes you, but with Christ, you become him.