The Eucharist: What Happened after Reformation?

[ericc]

I am interested to know, during the Reformation period, how ex-Catholics i.e. recent Reformist handled the absence of the Eucharist right after the switch of Churches. Let say this Catholic crossed over to the Reformed Church during the Reformation period. How did the pastors of the reformed Church communicated the idea that the eucharist they have been formerly receiving were actually idolatry of bread and therefore that practice will stop with immediate effect. Or was it a gradual shift over time and new doctrine was invented that the eucharist was idolatry of bread. Any one know how the current Reformed theology on the eucharist came about? How it was phased out? History buffs?

How about other doctrinal ideas on Confession, Mary, etc . How were they phased out and replaced by new doctrines? Were any of them ever questioned how they know the new doctrines are correct by their congregation? It must have been a tough job trying to convince others that 1500 years of history and practice were wrong. Being new and all that.

 

[peter26]

The 39 Articles were undoubtedly the key source of teaching on these matters.

Here’s what they say about the Eucharist (which I do not endorse in any way)

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.

 

[liturgyluver]

The Eucharist continued to be celebrated in all the reformation churches but with a different theology of what was happening during the Eucharistic Prayer. The services would have been in the vernacular, the chalice was restored to the laity, but the Eucharistic Prayers used were changed but the elements within them similar to the mass.Whilst the reformers rejected the notion of transubstantiation, many believed in a different sense of the real presence of Christ.

 

[BartholomewB]

Ericc

I don’t know the whole story, but there was one episode, several centuries before Luther’s Reformation, that has a bearing on the origin of the incompatible Catholic and Protestant theologies .

First of all, both Augustine and Ambrose wrote about the Real Presence, in *De Doctrina *and *De Mysteriis *respectively. After that period it was largely forgotten. Several centuries passed without anyone raising any questions about it, until Charlemagne (768-814) initiated wide-ranging ecclesiastical reforms, including the standardization of the liturgy throughout the Empire. This in turn triggered a new spirit of inquiry in the Church, particularly in Benedictine monasteries.

Liturgical reform called for reflection on the sacraments, some of which presented greater difficulty than others. Baptism, for instance, was relatively straightforward, but the Eucharist was more complex. This is the background to the celebrated “Eucharistic controversy” at Corbie, a Benedictine monastery in France, in the 830s and 840s. Two monks, Radbertus and Ratramnus, both wrote books on the subject, both of them drawing on Ambrose and Augustine. Unhelpfully, they both gave their books the same title, *De Corpore et Sanguine Domini *(On the Body and Blood of the Lord), and both used essentially the same terminology, in which the three key words were *veritas *(truth), figura (appearance or symbol), and mysterium (mystery). But they attached different meanings to the terms. Radbertus used veritas to mean that which faith teaches and *figura to mean the outward appearance of the elements of the Eucharist: they are outwardly bread and wine but “truly,” in Radbertus’ sense, the body and blood of the Lord. But Ratramnus, whose book appeared about ten years later, used veritas to denote the natural world of the five senses and figura *to denote all that is symbolic.

Charlemagne’s grandson, who is known to history by the unflattering name Charles the Bald, was responsible, in a way, for triggering the controversy. He was the ruler of the Empire at the time Radbertus wrote his book, and one day in 843 he turned up at Corbie saying he wanted to stay there a few days on a retreat. Charles was interested in theology, not least because he was aware that a mastery of the subject would help him settle conflicts at the various councils that were held in the course of his reign.

After a day or two at Corbie, Charles found that he didn’t get on very well with Radbertus, who was the head of the monastic school and therefore, nominally, the monastery’s top theologian. He got on better with one of the other monks, Ratramnus. (Later the same year Radbertus was elected abbot, on which occasion Ratramnus took over as head of the monastic school.)

Among other questions, Charles asked Ratramnus “whether the body and the blood of Christ, which the faithful at church receive in their mouth, are present there in mystery or in truth.” That was when Ratramnus sat down to write his book. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the reformers seized upon Ratramnus’ book to justify their reinterpretation of the Eucharist, while the Catholic Church stood by Radbertus. The controversy continues.

 

[ericc]

The Eucharist continued to be celebrated in all the reformation churches but with a different theology of what was happening during the Eucharistic Prayer. The services would have been in the vernacular, the chalice was restored to the laity, but the Eucharistic Prayers used were changed but the elements within them similar to the mass.Whilst the reformers rejected the notion of transubstantiation, many believed in a different sense of the real presence of Christ.

So there would not be a Sacrifice for Mass, the words “This is my Body” would not be uttered then? Confessions all just stopped? How do church folks accept that last week they were eating the Body of Christ and confessing their sins and the next, all these were deemed unnecessary, all these were unbiblical? Quite mind boggling I’d say to accept that without protest, intended pun. And if last week they did all that, then they have committed grave idolatry in the past and they will need to confess these sins but which by now has been stopped (Lutherans still have confessions but I believe Calvin and Zwingli opted out). So how did they confess or they didn’t?

Calvin and Zwingli didn’t accept real presence. So in their churches they couldn’t have the Eucharistic celebration at all. They would have to drop it immediately.

And how did the Reformers homily to their faithful take care of Mat 16:18? That the Gates of Hades actually prevailed for the last 1500 years? They must be pretty slick to get away with it. Not many people can wriggle out of that easily. But on the other hand, not many people were educated then. Charismatic leaders can still sell fridges to Eskimos I suppose. My mental block is really how did they got away with it without challenge from their own parish. How did they convince their folks that they got it right and all the others got it wrong. Probably the same way divorce and remarriage and ssm and abortion got into their institution I suppose. You just need like-minded people to agree with each other.

But I don’t think it was as simply as that. Perhaps there were nationalistic sentiments at play here. Some people just don’t like to take instructions from another country. Perhaps politics have a bigger influence on the success of the reformed movement than theology? Theology differences typically take many decades or even centuries to manifest, and takes a while for the support groups to establish over long periods of time. Prior heretical movements took a long time to establish. But the Reformation sort of exploded and helmed by key individuals and not with entirely similar theology too. The major thing common to them is one common enemy, the Church. But unlike previous heresies, this movement keeps on evolving to the extent that current thinking differs rather substantially from the thinking of the founders of their respective churches. Prior heresies such as Arianism seem pretty fixed for centuries and a one legged issue for most. But Protestantism is a different animal altogether. Even when original founders’ legacy were largely diluted or changed, the movement doesn’t die off. Barnacles? More like weeds.

 

[liturgyluver]

There are lots of questions in your post above and I am not going to answer them all. What I would say is that the form the reformation took differed from country to country, as did the particular branch that was adopted. There is loads of fascinating material about how it happened and the relative popularity among the populace. Even within traditions there were differences, so for example, Sweden ended up with a form of Lutheranism that was high (ceremonially similar to Catholicism) compared to some of the German States.

As to the Eucharistic Prayer, both Lutherans and Anglican rites included a prayer of consecration with the words"This is my Body etc". The Reformed tradition also used the words but in a different way, more as a Scriptual warrant, prior to the Eucharistic prayer, and again in it. There is a very good book about Reformation Eucharistic theology whose name escapes me but I will check my library when I get back home tonight.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Calvin’s Eucharistic theology was nothing more than a maze of contradictions. His beliefs, were in efect, that Christ is somehow present AND not present. He also believed that while christ was somehow magically present-but-not really, that the Eucharist conveys no grace or spiritual benefits.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

So there would not be a Sacrifice for Mass, the words “This is my Body” would not be uttered then? Confessions all just stopped? How do church folks accept that last week they were eating the Body of Christ and confessing their sins and the next, all these were deemed unnecessary, all these were unbiblical? Quite mind boggling I’d say to accept that without protest, intended pun. And if last week they did all that, then they have committed grave idolatry in the past and they will need to confess these sins but which by now has been stopped (Lutherans still have confessions but I believe Calvin and Zwingli opted out). So how did they confess or they didn’t?

Calvin and Zwingli didn’t accept real presence. So in their churches they couldn’t have the Eucharistic celebration at all. They would have to drop it immediately.

And how did the Reformers homily to their faithful take care of Mat 16:18? That the Gates of Hades actually prevailed for the last 1500 years? They must be pretty slick to get away with it. Not many people can wriggle out of that easily. But on the other hand, not many people were educated then. Charismatic leaders can still sell fridges to Eskimos I suppose. My mental block is really how did they got away with it without challenge from their own parish. How did they convince their folks that they got it right and all the others got it wrong. Probably the same way divorce and remarriage and ssm and abortion got into their institution I suppose. You just need like-minded people to agree with each other.

But I don’t think it was as simply as that. Perhaps there were nationalistic sentiments at play here. Some people just don’t like to take instructions from another country. Perhaps politics have a bigger influence on the success of the reformed movement than theology? Theology differences typically take many decades or even centuries to manifest, and takes a while for the support groups to establish over long periods of time. Prior heretical movements took a long time to establish. But the Reformation sort of exploded and helmed by key individuals and not with entirely similar theology too. The major thing common to them is one common enemy, the Church. But unlike previous heresies, this movement keeps on evolving to the extent that current thinking differs rather substantially from the thinking of the founders of their respective churches. Prior heresies such as Arianism seem pretty fixed for centuries and a one legged issue for most. But Protestantism is a different animal altogether. Even when original founders’ legacy were largely diluted or changed, the movement doesn’t die off. Barnacles? More like weeds.

Ok what’s with all of the " church was beaten for 1500 yrs " nonsense we have never believed that nor shall we ever , and we are your brothers , not enemies off the bride of Christ.

 

[ericc]

Ok what’s with all of the " church was beaten for 1500 yrs " nonsense we have never believed that nor shall we ever , and we are your brothers , not enemies off the bride of Christ.

And I never declared anyone enemies of Christ and neither did I ask whether anyone to believe nor disbelieve in any “nonsense”. Do you have answers to my questions which are mainly historical in perspective? I think my questions are valid pertaining to early Reformation days. How do one transit from one Church to another? How was that done at that time? How was that message being conveyed? If you don’t have any answers, just say you don’t know and I am happy to accept that answer. I will just assume that people those days don’t need to question their leaders then and just accept change without protest.

Your sense of indignation is misplaced.