Symbolic "Eucharist" only 300 years old?

[Lrning]

Sorry if this has already been answered, I can’t find it in a search.

I read an article that mentioned something to the effect that the belief that the Eucharist is symbolic and not the Real Presence is only about 300 years old. No source material was referenced and I would like to know more.

Does anyone know of information regarding the origin of the “symbolic” idea? I guess I always thought it was probably a resurfacing of some earlier heresy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I would think the symbolic idea came about with Protestants since they cannot do the real presense.

 

[palmas85]

Sorry if this has already been answered, I can’t find it in a search.

I read an article that mentioned something to the effect that the belief that the Eucharist is symbolic and not the Real Presence is only about 300 years old. No source material was referenced and I would like to know more.

Does anyone know of information regarding the origin of the “symbolic” idea? I guess I always thought it was probably a resurfacing of some earlier heresy.

Protestants generally believe it to be symbolic. Some groups Lutherans etc have kind of fuzzy ideas on it, not even agreeing amongst themselves on exactly what it is, but generally speaking the symbolic view is the Protestant view which is about 500 yaesr old.

All reliable sources indicate that the Catholic view of the real presence was the view and belief of the early church.

Don’t know where you picked that info up from but it is way off.

 

[chotock]

well the OP could referencing a belief other than Transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Many protestant groups believe the Eucharist is nothing more than plain bread and wine (juice) and that it is meerly a symbolic gesture. As I understand it, Lutherens and the other old protestant groups (Anglicans) still hold to consubstatiation which does infer a belief in the Real Prescence.

 

[palmas85]

well the OP could referencing a belief other than Transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Many protestant groups believe the Eucharist is nothing more than plain bread and wine (juice) and that it is meerly a symbolic gesture. As I understand it, Lutherens and the other old protestant groups (Anglicans) still hold to consubstatiation which does infer a belief in the Real Prescence.

Lutherans have a belief from what I can understand that the Host becomes the body and blood of Christ through your belief, not solely through the consecration prayers, although there are different variations within the different groups as to exactly what and when it happens. They generally don’t believe that the Real Presence exists after the service is over, although some groups claim that they do so believe. Our Chaplain is Lutheran and his group believes that the Host becomes the Body and Blood **only **when it is ingested.

I 'm not sure what Anglicans and Episcopalians believe and to be honest I don’t think they do either. Depending on which group you visit it will range from the Real Presence to merely symbolic to totally spiritual, to a public commemoration of the Last Supper etc.

I hate to say it but they are all across the board on the issue.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Protestants generally believe it to be symbolic. Some groups Lutherans etc have kind of fuzzy ideas on it, not even agreeing amongst themselves on exactly what it is, but generally speaking the symbolic view is the Protestant view which is about 500 yaesr old.

All reliable sources indicate that the Catholic view of the real presence was the view and belief of the early church.

Don’t know where you picked that info up from but it is way off.

From Adversus haereses written by St Irenaeus around 100 AD
Quoted:
“When Christ visited us in his grace, he did not come to what did not belong to him: also, by shedding his true blood for us, and exhibiting to us his true flesh in the Eucharist, he conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.”

The Catholic Church has always maintained that it is the real Flesh of Christ since Jesus said it is.

 

[a_cermak]

I 'm not sure what Anglicans and Episcopalians believe and to be honest I don’t think they do either. Depending on which group you visit it will range from the Real Presence to merely symbolic to totally spiritual, to a public commemoration of the Last Supper etc.

I hate to say it but they are all across the board on the issue.

Individual Anglicans and Episcopalians know what they believe, but the Church is broad enough to fit those who believe differently, except perhaps in England where the Articles still hold. One of the XXXIX Articles refers to the Eucharist as being symbolic only and not to be reverenced, but many Anglicans today embrace the Real Presence, even to the point of having Adoration and reservation in the Tabernacle.

The Episcopalian Church primarily seems to come down on the Real Presence side. The ones that I am aware of that don’t are in the South. These Churches tend to have a more sola scriptura, solo fide type theology than the ones I’m familiar with in Chicago.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Individual Anglicans and Episcopalians know what they believe, but the Church is broad enough to fit those who believe differently, except perhaps in England where the Articles still hold. One of the XXXIX Articles refers to the Eucharist as being symbolic only and not to be reverenced, but many Anglicans today embrace the Real Presence, even to the point of having Adoration and reservation in the Tabernacle.

The Episcopalian Church primarily seems to come down on the Real Presence side. The ones that I am aware of that don’t are in the South. These Churches tend to have a more sola scriptura, solo fide type theology than the ones I’m familiar with in Chicago.

I know the Anglecan church sees itself as Apostolic and this is probably why they still believe in the real presense as well.

However, when Henry VIII decided to rebuke the Pope’s decision by taken over all Catholic churches in his lands, that left them seperated from the Church and it’s Apostolic succession since they no longer had the connection to Peter. This in turn left them with out the real presense.

Right???

 

[jmcrae]

I know the Anglecan church sees itself as Apostolic and this is probably why they still believe in the real presense as well.

However, when Henry VIII decided to rebuke the Pope’s decision by taken over all Catholic churches in his lands, that left them seperated from the Church and it’s Apostolic succession since they no longer had the connection to Peter. This in turn left them with out the real presense.

Right???

At that point, they were in schism, just like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but they still had valid Holy Orders.

They lost the validity of their Holy Orders under King Edward VI, who was anti-Sacramental, when he deliberately changed the Ordination service for priests to say that it is only a symbolic leadership role, with no kind of spiritual power to confect the Sacraments going along with it. That’s why they don’t have a valid priesthood - after all, the Orthodox are in schism, but they do have valid priests.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

At that point, they were in schism, just like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but they still had valid Holy Orders.

They lost the validity of their Holy Orders under King Edward VI, who was anti-Sacramental, when he deliberately changed the Ordination service for priests to say that it is only a symbolic leadership role, with no kind of spiritual power to confect the Sacraments going along with it. That’s why they don’t have a valid priesthood - after all, the Orthodox are in schism, but they do have valid priests.

Now this is where it gets very confusing…

With the Orthodox do they have the real presense with the Eucharist?

I ask because in my own understanding it seems as though only the Roman Catholic Church has all seven sacraments. And with the Anglecan church it seems as though King Henry VIII did more than a schism when he said he was the authority. But I am still learning and trying to understand.

 

[a_cermak]

Pope Leo XIII said that the Anglicans have no valid orders. However, non-Catholics are not obliged to believe it. So yes, Episcopalians have the Real Presence from my perspective as an Episcopalian. Don’t forget they have many bishops who have been ordained by both an Old Roman Catholic (who have valid Sacraments) and an Episcopalian so even from your perspective, it would depend on the priest.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Pope Leo XIII said that the Anglicans have no valid orders. However, non-Catholics are not obliged to believe it. So yes, Episcopalians have the Real Presence from my perspective as an Episcopalian. Don’t forget they have many bishops who have been ordained by both an Old Roman Catholic (who have valid Sacraments) and an Episcopalian so even from your perspective, it would depend on the priest.

With a priest his ability to perform the Eucharist comes from the Bishop right? And doesn’t the Bishop get his ability passed on from the Pope?

So, having a succession from Peter the Bishops have a line that goes back to Peter and thus they can perform this sacrement. This way it is ordained according to the ‘keys’ of the Church.

Right???

 

[jmcrae]

Now this is where it gets very confusing…

With the Orthodox do they have the real presense with the Eucharist?

Yes, they do - and all of their other Sacraments are valid, as well. But it’s because of their relatively remote connection with us that this is so - it’s not under their own power.

 

[jmcrae]

With a priest his ability to perform the Eucharist comes from the Bishop right? And doesn’t the Bishop get his ability passed on from the Pope?

In our case, that’s how it works, yes.

So, having a succession from Peter the Bishops have a line that goes back to Peter and thus they can perform this sacrement. This way it is ordained according to the ‘keys’ of the Church.

As long as they go back to a Bishop who was ordained by a Pope somewhere along the way, and as long as there was never any break in the Sacrament itself (ie: never any wrong intent, or wrong words, etc.) then they could still be okay.

 

[VociMike]

As long as they go back to a Bishop who was ordained by a Pope somewhere along the way, and as long as there was never any break in the Sacrament itself (ie: never any wrong intent, or wrong words, etc.) then they could still be okay.

I don’t think there needs to be a connection with the pope, only with one of the original apostles. Open to correction if I’m wrong.

I witnessed proof of how seriously the Church takes apostolic succesion recently at the ordination of our new bishop. He had hands laid on him by over a dozen bishops and cardinals, thus (among other symbolic reasons) assuring that no invalidly-ordained bishops who somehow got into the procedure could result in invalid ordinations down the line.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think there needs to be a connection with the pope, only with one of the original apostles. Open to correction if I’m wrong.

In theory that would work, if we knew who the bishops of today were, who were in those lines of succession.

I witnessed proof of how seriously the Church takes apostolic succesion recently at the ordination of our new bishop. He had hands laid on him by over a dozen bishops and cardinals, thus (among other symbolic reasons) assuring that no invalidly-ordained bishops who somehow got into the procedure could result in invalid ordinations down the line.

What church was that? I’ve only ever seen one Bishop at any given Ordination ceremony, that I can recall. (There may have been visiting Bishops in one case, but I don’t remember clearly.)

 

[palmas85]

I don’t think there needs to be a connection with the pope, only with one of the original apostles. Open to correction if I’m wrong.

I witnessed proof of how seriously the Church takes apostolic succesion recently at the ordination of our new bishop. He had hands laid on him by over a dozen bishops and cardinals, thus (among other symbolic reasons) assuring that no invalidly-ordained bishops who somehow got into the procedure could result in invalid ordinations down the line.

I don’t know if the Orthodox Churches still do this but in the past they would maintain lists showing all the Bishops and Priests of a particular church or area, and who ordained them, so the lines were very clear. Some of these lists went all the way back to the first or second centuries. I think the Roman Church has a similar system, but I’m not sure exasctly how it is maintained…

 

[a_cermak]

Like I said, some Episcopalian Bishops have been ordained by both the Utrecht line of Old Roman Catholics who have valid succession and valid Sacraments. So some would have that same lineage.

My priest was ordained by a Bishop who was ordained by a Bishop who… There is a succession. Now, our story is now more complicated by the fact that we have women bishops and priests thus not only gainsaying Pope Leo XIII but also John Paul II. However we are not in union and make no pretense of being in union.

 

[porthos11]

With a priest his ability to perform the Eucharist comes from the Bishop right? And doesn’t the Bishop get his ability passed on from the Pope?

No. The Bishop gets his ability from the Bishop who consecrated him.

So, having a succession from Peter the Bishops have a line that goes back to Peter and thus they can perform this sacrement. This way it is ordained according to the ‘keys’ of the Church.

Right???

It doesn’t have to go back necessarily to St. Peter, but to one of the original Apostles
.

 

[VociMike]

I witnessed proof of how seriously the Church takes apostolic succesion recently at the ordination of our new bishop. He had hands laid on him by over a dozen bishops and cardinals, thus (among other symbolic reasons) assuring that no invalidly-ordained bishops who somehow got into the procedure could result in invalid ordinations down the line.

It was the ordination of Bishop Dewane here in Venice, FL. I had heard that there are always three bishops who do the ordination, for the reasons I stated, and was surprised at how many more were actually present and laid on hands. From memory (this was about six months ago) it was at least a dozen. It was very impressive.