When did Protestants first start disbelieving the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

[mackbrislawn]

Hi

no problem. But why didn’t you simply erase your post and then write it new again?
Or edit it?

Actually I was editing it but I took longer than 20 minutes. I didn’t realize you could erase it.

 

[mangy_dog]

Hi all. In a study group in my parish, we were discussing the Eucharist and how it has been believed to the be actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ throughout the history of the Catholic Church. Someone asked exactly when Protestants abandoned/reinterpreted that belief after the Reformation, and I actually had no idea.

I realize that there are differing views of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper within the Protestant realm. But I’m wondering if any of you historical scholars can point me toward when a purely “symbolic” interpretation of the Eucharist started to develop, and maybe how it came about.

Thanks so much for your help!

Ever since Jesus gave His talk to the disciples about eating His body and drinking His blood. Jn 6: 51-70.

This is not new, it’s been this way all through the ages. It’s been a favorite target of Lucifer…the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

[bobolink]

Ever since Jesus gave His talk to the disciples about eating His body and drinking His blood. Jn 6: 51-70.

This is not new, it’s been this way all through the ages. It’s been a favorite target of Lucifer…the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

The verse is John 6:66:

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I guess you’ll find “liberal theologians” in EVERY Church. Probably less in the Evangelical Protestant Churches.
Well, I even know of Catholic scholars that are “liberal”! My dad even had a professor when he was studying theology who was very liberal in the sense that he even started questioning if the Gospel really teaches what Jesus actually said and did. (He then resigned from the priesthood and then from the CC!)

 

[mangy_dog]

The verse is John 6:66:

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

51 thourgh 70 gives you the broader picture which clearly indicates that Jesus is not speaking of a symbol and is truly speaking of His blood and His body.

In it He gives them all the possible permutations of the idea until it is unavoidable in their minds that this is not a symbol He is talking about.

 

[Radical]

51 thourgh 70 gives you the broader picture which clearly indicates that Jesus is not speaking of a symbol and is truly speaking of His blood and His body.

In it He gives them all the possible permutations of the idea until it is unavoidable in their minds that this is not a symbol He is talking about.

Really? All the possible permutations? Interesting. Please direct me to the verses that discuss the permutation that involves transubstantiation. Now I wouldn’t expect that word to appear in the text, but if Christ provided all possible permutations and you think a real somatic presence is involved with one (or more) such permutation, then we should find something where Jesus described a manner of eating his flesh which saw the eater only able to sense bread and unable to sense flesh. Also, there should be mention that an entire body (not just a bit of flesh, not all of the flesh of a body, but the whole body) is eaten in one small bite…though of course the body is not actually bitten as it is present in such a manner that doesn’t allow the teeth of the chewer to actually interact physically with the flesh and or body of Christ. Jesus should have also clarified that his use of “gnaw” was inaccurate, b/c with a real somatic presence, his flesh isn’t actually gnawed.

Some walked away from Christ that day, but I always thought that they couldn’t have possibly walked away from eating flesh by way of a real somatic presence, b/c from what I saw in that passage, I had always thought that such an idea had never been spelled out that day. Never saw a hint of it, in fact…Now you tell me that all permutations were covered…so please, which verses present the ideas set out in the paragraph above?

 

[bobolink]

I just pointed out John 6:66 as it is the verse where the disciples abandon the Lord because they can’t believe in the Eucharist. Get it? 666…

The Fathers of the Church all agreed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Radical]

I just pointed out John 6:66 as it is the verse where the disciples abandon the Lord because they can’t believe in the Eucharist. Get it? 666.

Nope, I don’t. As I said, I don’t see any mention of a real somatic presence in John 6…nor do I see any mention by Christ that he will be instituting a ritual utilizing bread and wine. As such, I see no rejection by anyone (on that day) of a Eucharist involving a real somatic presence…such a possibility could not have even been envisioned that day as such an outlandish concept would not have registered on any one’s radar. I would expect that, at a minimum, Greek philosophy and a good number of decades would be required before one could come up with the idea of bread being converted to flesh and still appearing as bread…the average Jewish fisherman surely wouldn’t have considered such a possibility. As to 666, shouldn’t it be the 6th verse of the 6th chapter of the 6th book or possibly the 616th verse of the NT? BTW who instituted the chapter and verse divisions in the NT and why do you think they were inspired (so as to validate any 666 connection)?

The Fathers of the Church all agreed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Yeah, but they hardly were on the same page as to “how” they were the body and blood. As indicated, from what I have seen Augustine’s biographers (scholarly Catholics included) seem to be congregating around the “Augustine didn’t believe in a real bodily presence” position.* Further, you’ll have a heck of a time trying to establish that the likes of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria believed in a real somatic presence…but since you brought up the ECFs, do you have any that held to your use of 666 with respect to John 6:66? You won’t be able to do that (given when chapter and verse divisions were introduced), but maybe you could produce one reputable modern Cathoilic scholar who has put forward that interpretation of the “666 meaning” for public review and consideration. I am curious as to whether such an animal actually exists.

• I am also curious as to whether Contarini would acknowledge this as a modern trend…perhaps it is outside of his area, but from what I have seen (and I haven’t done any polls or looked at all that many biographies), it seems to be the case.

 

[mangy_dog]

Really? All the possible permutations? Interesting. Please direct me to the verses that discuss the permutation that involves transubstantiation. Now I wouldn’t expect that word to appear in the text, but if Christ provided all possible permutations and you think a real somatic presence is involved with one (or more) such permutation, then we should find something where Jesus described a manner of eating his flesh which saw the eater only able to sense bread and unable to sense flesh. Also, there should be mention that an entire body (not just a bit of flesh, not all of the flesh of a body, but the whole body) is eaten in one small bite…though of course the body is not actually bitten as it is present in such a manner that doesn’t allow the teeth of the chewer to actually interact physically with the flesh and or body of Christ. Jesus should have also clarified that his use of “gnaw” was inaccurate, b/c with a real somatic presence, his flesh isn’t actually gnawed.

Some walked away from Christ that day, but I always thought that they couldn’t have possibly walked away from eating flesh by way of a real somatic presence, b/c from what I saw in that passage, I had always thought that such an idea had never been spelled out that day. Never saw a hint of it, in fact…Now you tell me that all permutations were covered…so please, which verses present the ideas set out in the paragraph above?

You fail to understand that these disciples - good disciples, wouldn’t just walk away from Him on a misunderstanding. how can this man give us of his flesh?] Not just what Jesus said but what was understood and what could not be mistaken.

And by the way, you have it somewhat right when you talk about “the eater only able to sense bread and wine…”
The accidents of our perception remain and so we do only percieve bread and wine with our senses - however, in the supernatural order…it is truly the Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Your manner of thinking is not so Radical and nouveau… it’s the same rejection of the [good disciples who walked away]

 

[bobolink]

Nope, I don’t. As I said, I don’t see any mention of a real somatic presence in John 6…nor do I see any mention by Christ that he will be instituting a ritual utilizing bread and wine. As such, I see no rejection by anyone (on that day) of a Eucharist involving a real somatic presence…such a possibility could not have even been envisioned that day as such an outlandish concept would not have registered on any one’s radar. I would expect that, at a minimum, Greek philosophy and a good number of decades would be required before one could come up with the idea of bread being converted to flesh and still appearing as bread…the average Jewish fisherman surely wouldn’t have considered such a possibility. As to 666, shouldn’t it be the 6th verse of the 6th chapter of the 6th book or possibly the 616th verse of the NT? BTW who instituted the chapter and verse divisions in the NT and why do you think they were inspired (so as to validate any 666 connection)?

Yeah, but they hardly were on the same page as to “how” they were the body and blood. As indicated, from what I have seen Augustine’s biographers (scholarly Catholics included) seem to be congregating around the “Augustine didn’t believe in a real bodily presence” position.* Further, you’ll have a heck of a time trying to establish that the likes of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria believed in a real somatic presence…but since you brought up the ECFs, do you have any that held to your use of 666 with respect to John 6:66? You won’t be able to do that (given when chapter and verse divisions were introduced), but maybe you could produce one reputable modern Cathoilic scholar who has put forward that interpretation of the “666 meaning” for public review and consideration. I am curious as to whether such an animal actually exists.

• I am also curious as to whether Contarini would acknowledge this as a modern trend…perhaps it is outside of his area, but from what I have seen (and I haven’t done any polls or looked at all that many biographies), it seems to be the case.

The 666 connection is incidental.

Augustine did believe in the real presence - check the link I posted.

This might help you:

chastitysf.com/tradition.htm

chastitysf.com/q_whychurch.htm

 

[Contarini]

You fail to understand that these disciples - good disciples, wouldn’t just walk away from Him on a misunderstanding.

It depends. Not a simple intellectual misunderstanding with no relationship to their faith, sure. But there seems to be a fairly strong theme in all the Gospels (see Mark 4/Matt. 13) that Jesus used deliberately cryptic, mysterious, and shocking language to drive away those whose motivations for following him were not the kind Jesus wanted. This may jar with contemporary sensibilities, but that may not be Jesus’ problem

I certainly don’t think they walked away because they couldn’t accept the Eucharist. I think something quite different is going on–probably that they wanted Jesus to provide endless free meals for his followers and were not interested in the mystical reality of which he was speaking.

Mind you, I think that that mystical reality does involve the Eucharist. But I don’t think the people who walked away had any concept of the Eucharist per se. The Eucharistic implications of John 6 are only clear in the context of the rest of Scripture and Christian tradition.

I find this to be one of the weakest talking points of contemporary Catholic apologetics. Any argument that takes the form “Jesus wouldn’t have done X” is highly suspect. It’s not always wrong to think this way–certainly Jesus wouldn’t do things that were actually immoral. But Jesus was not as “nice” or as predictable a person as we often want Him to be!

 

[Contarini]

Likely that was the reference.

But the debate between Ratramnus and Radbertus preceded Berengarius by +/- 200 years.

GKC

Yes, but I think that modern scholars generally don’t consider that debate to be quite as important as Protestants looking for proto-Reformed Eucharistic theology have sometimes made it. Ratramnus’s position may not have been that different from Augustine’s–he wanted to speak in terms of sign and signified, but he may not have been denying the Real Presence in its Catholic sense. I think I may be relying on Jaroslav Pelikan here.

 

[mangy_dog]

It depends. Not a simple intellectual misunderstanding with no relationship to their faith, sure. But there seems to be a fairly strong theme in all the Gospels (see Mark 4/Matt. 13) that Jesus used deliberately cryptic, mysterious, and shocking language to drive away those whose motivations for following him were not the kind Jesus wanted. This may jar with contemporary sensibilities, but that may not be Jesus’ problem

I certainly don’t think they walked away because they couldn’t accept the Eucharist. I think something quite different is going on–probably that they wanted Jesus to provide endless free meals for his followers and were not interested in the mystical reality of which he was speaking.

Mind you, I think that that mystical reality does involve the Eucharist. But I don’t think the people who walked away had any concept of the Eucharist per se. The Eucharistic implications of John 6 are only clear in the context of the rest of Scripture and Christian tradition.

I find this to be one of the weakest talking points of contemporary Catholic apologetics. Any argument that takes the form “Jesus wouldn’t have done X” is highly suspect. It’s not always wrong to think this way–certainly Jesus wouldn’t do things that were actually immoral. But Jesus was not as “nice” or as predictable a person as we often want Him to be!

Yes, you are correct. It was about faith, faith in Jesus’ words. It was the way Jesus chose those words to kind of say, " hey guys, this is how it’s going to be in saecula saeculorum."

Of course they had no concept of the Eucharist - neither did the apostles. This had nothing to do with “limitless shrimp” like Red Lobster; the words of Jesus were purposely and delibrately chosen to solidify who His true followers would be by bringing into focus the essence and centrality of the nacent church.

This was a crucial turning point in what would soon be the Catholic chuch with Peter as its first Pope. This point had to be driven home…and so He did.

I believe this series of passages clearly and precisely addresses the true and real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I further believe it also shows that the message was clear in the minds of the listeners - not just the disciples but also the apostles who were probably just as confounded by what Jesus was saying but…the difference is, they didn’t leave, " [who will we go to Lord, you have the words of life".]

Its not like they said, " oh yeah, we get it". No, they didn’t get it. But instead of bailing out they stayed. Hard doctrine or otherwise, they stayed.

 

[GKC]

Yes, but I think that modern scholars generally don’t consider that debate to be quite as important as Protestants looking for proto-Reformed Eucharistic theology have sometimes made it. Ratramnus’s position may not have been that different from Augustine’s–he wanted to speak in terms of sign and signified, but he may not have been denying the Real Presence in its Catholic sense. I think I may be relying on Jaroslav Pelikan here.

I’m relying on fallible memory, worn by age.

But I recall it as more significant a difference.

Almost bought a book on it, once.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The reformers adopted an already rejected view of the Eucharist introduced by a Catholic deacon long before the reformation, who gave a definition of the Eucharist in his writings close to “consubstantiation” which was rejected long before the reformers picked it up again.

The symbolism of the Eucharist interpretation? My quess would be after the reformation was well underway in their “freedom” to interpret the scriptures, especially John chapter six, without Apostolic Oral and written Traditional support. Which led them to “new” differing opinions, teachings and interpretations that no one protestant community could agree on as a whole.

History, Church councils, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Saints, Martrys witnesses and writings prove that Christianity since the resurrection believed in a “True” presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity are present in the Valid consecrated Eucharist.

Hi all. In a study group in my parish, we were discussing the Eucharist and how it has been believed to the be actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ throughout the history of the Catholic Church. Someone asked exactly when Protestants abandoned/reinterpreted that belief after the Reformation, and I actually had no idea.

I realize that there are differing views of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper within the Protestant realm. But I’m wondering if any of you historical scholars can point me toward when a purely “symbolic” interpretation of the Eucharist started to develop, and maybe how it came about.

Thanks so much for your help!

 

[Radical]

You fail to understand that these disciples - good disciples, wouldn’t just walk away from Him on a misunderstanding. how can this man give us of his flesh?] Not just what Jesus said but what was understood and what could not be mistaken.

Contarini nailed it with his comment about there being “a fairly strong theme in all the Gospels (see Mark 4/Matt. 13) that Jesus used deliberately cryptic, mysterious, and shocking language to drive away those whose motivations for following him were not the kind Jesus wanted.” What he could have added was that in this particular instance Jesus’s language included a command that, if literally followed, would have necessitated sinning by way of cannibalism. Literally taken, it would be both vulgar and sinful.

You acknowledge that, of “course, they had no concept of the Eucharist - neither did the apostles.” So then, from the text, what can you possibly give as the reason for their abandonment of Jesus other than their failure to believe that he was the Son of God and that (notwithstanding his command to eat flesh), his words were life?..even though they may (on the surface) be offensive. So there they were, faced with a command that they couldn’t understand. They would have had no concept of a Eucharistic (somatic presence) interpretation. Further, a cannibalistic interpretation would have been totally out of line with Christ’s integrity and so they were left with either:

1. accepting (on faith) that he is the Son of God and that, therefore, his words are somehow valid; or
2. he was speaking nonsense and should be abandoned.

 

[rinnie]

It depends. Not a simple intellectual misunderstanding with no relationship to their faith, sure. But there seems to be a fairly strong theme in all the Gospels (see Mark 4/Matt. 13) that Jesus used deliberately cryptic, mysterious, and shocking language to drive away those whose motivations for following him were not the kind Jesus wanted. This may jar with contemporary sensibilities, but that may not be Jesus’ problem

I certainly don’t think they walked away because they couldn’t accept the Eucharist. I think something quite different is going on–probably that they wanted Jesus to provide endless free meals for his followers and were not interested in the mystical reality of which he was speaking.

Mind you, I think that that mystical reality does involve the Eucharist. But I don’t think the people who walked away had any concept of the Eucharist per se. The Eucharistic implications of John 6 are only clear in the context of the rest of Scripture and Christian tradition.

I find this to be one of the weakest talking points of contemporary Catholic apologetics. Any argument that takes the form “Jesus wouldn’t have done X” is highly suspect. It’s not always wrong to think this way–certainly Jesus wouldn’t do things that were actually immoral. But Jesus was not as “nice” or as predictable a person as we often want Him to be!

Depends on how you would describe nice then I guess. I believe that Jesus was Quite predictable. He was always going to teach the truth.

Do you often wonder what it was about Jesus that made people think that he wasn’t as you say always nice?

When Jesus came into this world he said he came to separate us. But don’t you often wonder what he was and who he was separating us from? Ironically it was from eachother and ourself.

Jesus came to lay down the law, and he knew that if you were one of his you would follow him. rather you understood everything or not. And he knew we did not.

You see Jesus came for one reason and one reason only!! To take away the sins of the world. That not only makes him predictable it also was predicted.

You see the nearer Jesus comes to our heart the more we become conscious of our sins. And lets face it, that is not easy to accept.

That is why he came to separate us from ourself, he came to provoke us, he provoked human hearts to either be good or evil.

Once these people came into contact with him they knew they had to subscribe into either darkness or light.

I believe these people did indeed walk away because they could not accept the Eucharist. The words of Christ were quite clear. and they repeated them back to him. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

And Christ corrected them did he not? He said quite clear not mere Man but the SON OF GOD would give it.

Christs words were too literal and he cleared up too many false interpretations for any of his hearers to claim that the Eucharist was just a symbol.

On the night before he died he was quite clear in his last will and testament he left something that no man has ever left before.

His Body, his Blood, his Soul and his Divinity for the life of the world.

 

[rinnie]

The announcent of the Eucharist produced one of the greatest crises in the life of Jesus.

Up to this point he had almost everyone behind him. But then this was to much for them.

What Christ did is what he is still doing today. He asked a faith that is too much for most men.

He also lost another group that day, the elite or intelectual and religious leaders. John 6:61-67. Look how many disciples walked away from him.

Do you honestly think that our Lord would have let them walk away if they misunderstood him? They could not accept it. Think about it what did he say to them?

Does this shock you? What if you see the Son of Man ascending to the place where he was before?

He was expecting them to believe that he was indeed GOD!!

He lost something else that alot of people forget, and it caused him great sorrow. he lost Judas. It was when Jesus announced that he was the heavenly bread that made Judas crack. Judas could not take it, and that is when the devil entered Judas.

But it is Peter the leader of the Church today as of yesterday they said: Lord to whom shall we go? Your words are words of eternal life. WE have faith and we know that you are the HOLY ONE OF GOD!!

 

[rinnie]

Here is another Hard saying, and I know it will cause alot of people to dislike me, but I am willing to take the chance.

When and where did Jesus start negotiating with us? I mean come on. Is it not the same today as it was that day when he was here in the flesh.

How many people walk away from the CC today because they don’t like what it teaches. Well like it or not its not going to change. The Pope has a promise and is responsible to teach the truth as it is revealed to him. Like it or not.

And he will answer directly to God for every single thing he does on this earth. And trust me he knows it!

How many people here today can say they are 100% sure that they are in the right Church?

Well I know I am, and if you can’t say that in your heart 100% you really better figure it out.

I could put my life on the line on that one. Well actually I did, my heart is in the RCC heart, body and soul!! And will be until Jesus comes again in Glory!

 

[Contarini]

Of course they had no concept of the Eucharist - neither did the apostles.

That seems to contradict the idea that they understood Jesus and walked away anyway.

This had nothing to do with “limitless shrimp” like Red Lobster;

Are you saying that they didn’t want something like “limitless shrimp”? (obviously they wouldn’t want limitless shrimp, being Jews, but perhaps limitless tuna. . … ) What makes you so sure? Given the miracle they had just seen, isn’t this a quite likely interpretation?

I believe this series of passages clearly and precisely addresses the true and real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I further believe it also shows that the message was clear in the minds of the listeners - not just the disciples but also the apostles who were probably just as confounded by what Jesus was saying but…the difference is, they didn’t leave, " [who will we go to Lord, you have the words of life".]

Its not like they said, " oh yeah, we get it". No, they didn’t get it. But instead of bailing out they stayed. Hard doctrine or otherwise, they stayed.

You seem to me to be switching back and forth between two incompatible positions:

1. The crowds understood that Jesus was talking about sacramentally eating and drinking His Body and Blood, and they couldn’t handle this teaching. (That appeared initially to be what you were saying.) Or
2. The crowds understood that Jesus was saying something very weird that sounded cannibalistic, and since it clearly wasn’t the kind of message they were looking for they lost interest and walked away. (That’s what I’m saying.)

I understand that you are probably saying something in between–my accusation of inconsistency is an invitation to you to explain more clearly what this third position might be and how it differs from the two positions I have outlined above.

Edwin