R
Radical
Guest
no need to apologize….welcome to the party.
Nope, nobody has, but I don’t think that it matters. The OPster wanted to know how it came about that certain Reformers rejected a real somatic presence (RSP) in the Eucharist. It is MHO that it was possible for those reformers to look at the works of the ECFs and note that some of them did not endorse a RSP. Most certainly one can look at the ECFs and find those who did clearly endorse a RSP, but it is the variety that is the spice of the Protestant’s life. To answer the OP in more detail I would say:
- I can’t imagine that a thinking man wouldn’t question a RSP at some point in time. It is not like the Apostle Thomas’s reaction to the news of Christ’s resurrection. There are no eye witnesses who have seen the Lord present bodily at the Eucharist. Even if such eye witnesses existed, one can not do as Thomas did and touch the body of Christ to verify its reality. Surely one will eventually ask, why should I believe a claim that can not be verified by my senses?
- For many, the answer to the question set out at #1 above is: B/c that is what the Church teaches and/or that is what scripture teaches. WRT the scriptures teaching a RSP, I have been involved in quite a number of threads here and I have yet to be presented with an argument that (to my satisfaction) establishes that any passage must be understood to teach a RSP. My opinion in this regard is supported by countless reasonable and intelligent people who are also experts in the necessary languages. I am not saying that one must agree with my assessment, but if you cannot see how a reasonable, intelligent and informed person could come to such a position, then (IMHO) you should realize that the problem lies with your limitations. As such, when those certain reformers looked to see if scripture could justify a belief in a RSP, many would have concluded that such belief was not justified.
- WRT to believing in a RSP b/c that is what the Church teaches, I believe that the reformers would have looked at not just whether the Church taught a RSP at that time, but also whether the Church had always taught a RSP. Regarding the Church teaching a RSP in the 16th century, that teaching is well established. The question for the reformers would be: To what extent can we confidently say that the Church speaks for God? The Church governed by Rome at that time did not have the best of reputations and so, one could easily come to the conclusion that the hierarchy of that Church was not being led by the Spirit (all that much)….selling “get out of purgatory cards” wouldn’t have helped. If it was not led by the Spirit all that much, then one could easily wonder if it was led by the Spirit in representing God’s revelation (WRT a RSP). One could conclude, then, that there was nothing about the present condition of the Church that indicated that it should be free from error. The existence of a current teaching then, would not have been sufficient to justify a belief in a RSP (for a good percentage at least).
- If one then moved to previous teachings of the Church (the works of the ECFs) to see if the Church always and everywhere taught a RSP (as the basis for a reason to justify a belief in a RSP), one will find ECFs that don’t appear to endorse a RSP. I would point to the likes of Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian and Augustine. I think the situation is even stronger these days (for my position) than back then as now we even have Catholics who will say that Augustine didn’t hold to a RSP. It doesn’t matter that you might be able to produce a good number of ECFs that hold to a RSP (except that if you couldn’t produce any or only a few, it should be obvious to all that the RSP is an innovation). The fact that reasonable, intelligent and informed scholars come to the conclusion that not all the ECFs endorsed a RSP should cause one to realize that such a conclusion is not unreasonable and that, therefore, the doctrine of a RSP may not be of apostolic origin. If the likes of Augustine didn’t accept it, then is it that he rejected an orthodox and apostolic teaching (very unlikely given what we know) or that it was lost before it got to him (also unlikely given what we know)?….or, more likely, is it that the doctrine wasn’t uniformly and universally taught? If not, wouldn’t a good explanation be that the thing was not an apostolic teaching, but rather a man-made creation produced by pious imagination that had gained a good deal of support, but had not, as yet, won everybody over? Again, I am not saying that the only reasonable thing to do is to adopt my conclusion WRT this matter, but if you cannot see how a reasonable, intelligent and informed person could come to such a position, then (IMHO) you should realize that the problem lies with your limitations.
I will address this and the other things you wrote more later, but this is not light stuff, as it were. It’s mentally fatiguing though equally worthwhile in provoking rich and rewarding thought on the mysteries of God.
