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

  • Thread starter Thread starter panther
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Esdra said:
I would say rather early!
So you could say: the closest Protestant Churches to the CC (and the EO) are: the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Episcopoleans, the Old Catholic Churches in communion with Utrecht and finally the PNCC.
They all hold belief in the RP.
All others are splitter groups or descents of the Swiss Reformation (Calvinism) and the Reformed Evangelical Church, and thus don’t believe in the RP.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to take this thread off track…but aren’t Anglicans and Epsicopalians (sp?) the same thing?
 
BigE said:
I don’t want to take this thread off track…but aren’t Anglicans and Epsicopalians (sp?) the same thing?
Click to expand...
I don’t really know.
You see, I am not American and the Episcopoleans were new for me when I came here. 😉

But, you can of course be right here! 😉
 
panther said:
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!
Click to expand...
I would say that is simple, the day they walked away from the CC. That is the problem with the protestant faith it is not the same. But yet the bible says there is only ONE TRUTH. You think they would be a big heads up for People:shrug:
 
I feel that Zwingli’s disbelieving in the real physical Presence started a trend in Protestantism on disbelieving anything that natural man could not accept. Zwingli’s is a form of easy-believism, easy for worldly man to believe. The ultimate result is dis-belief in the real resurrection that is taking hold even in evangelical circles, and not only among modern liberals. That Jesus’ resurrection was not real, not physical, but only a ‘faith event’ of the apostles and disciples. His body was not physically raised, but at the most only spiritually, at the least only in the minds of the disciples.

So, denying the real presence eventually ends up in denying the resurrection and even denying the validity of scripture, as some modern liberals do.

After all, belief in the resurrection, scripture and God is just a few more of those Catholic traditions to be rid of…
 
Esdra said:
I don’t really know.
You see, I am not American and the Episcopoleans were new for me when I came here. 😉

But, you can of course be right here! 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, they are part of the Anglican communion.

As an aside, that created quite a problem for them during the American revolution!
 
mackbrislawn said:
Yes, they are part of the Anglican communion.

As an aside, that created quite a problem for them during the American revolution!
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks. I reseacherd it in the meantime. 😉

But there I also found out that there are “real Anglicans” belonging to the Church of England also to be found in the US?..

Yes, I can imagine that that caused the one or other problem during the American revolution…
 
mackbrislawn said:
I feel that Zwingli’s disbelieving in the real physical Presence started a trend in Protestantism on disbelieving anything that natural man could not accept. Zwingli’s is a form of easy-believism, easy for worldly man to believe. The ultimate result is dis-belief in the real resurrection that is taking hold even in evangelical circles, and not only among modern liberals. That Jesus’ resurrection was not real, not physical, but only a ‘faith event’ of the apostles and disciples. His body was not physically raised, but at the most only spiritually, at the least only in the minds of the disciples.
Click to expand...
Do you really know of a modern denomination that teaches so?
I mean, for me this sounds nearly like Gnosticism. And as far as I know, in the meantime there are no Gnostics anymore.
So, denying the real presence eventually ends up in denying the resurrection and even denying the validity of scripture, as some modern liberals do.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t think so. The reformed Christians (“Calvinists”) don’t believe in the RP (but that the Supper is symbolic), however, they of course do believe that Christ resurrected physically! - And I guess they’ll never stop believing that! - Otherwise they would be just like a heresy as the Gnostics.
After all, belief in the resurrection, scripture and God is just a few more of those Catholic traditions to be rid of…
Click to expand...
Scripture is most important for Calvinists. God, of course, too.
The whole Swiss Reformation is based on the Scriptures. And it is the very centre of their service/worship.
 
The disbelief in the Eucharist goes all the way back to the gospels.

Jesus had many followers, but when He began to speak of eating and drinking His body and blood, they thought He was speaking of cannibalism and left Him. He established the Eucharist at the Last Supper with the Apostles who remained faithful to Him. We all know about Judas.

There are precursors to the Eucharist in the Old Testament…the manna from heaven…the reference that the messiah would be hung on a tree…to be come the Bread of Life, the Tree of Life to restore by His own life that what was lost by Adam and Eve for eating of the forbidden fruit of knowledge…to assume godliness…but the deviancy also of playing god and deciding who lives or dies…Christ died to give us new life…in Him and He said Whoever eats…will have eternal life…
 
Esdra said:
But could you say then that the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) believe the same concerning the RP than Augustine did?
Click to expand...
Actually, I don’t think Augustine’s sign-signified distinction has as much traction in the East (certainly some very early Eastern theologians, like Origen, talked that way). They are pretty solidly in the “metabolic” or “realist” camp.
Unfortunately I don’t really know much about the Eucharist in the Orthodox Churches, 'though I think it’s different viewed than in the CC.
Click to expand...
There are some differences of nuance, but they would thoroughly agree that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Some differences are:
  1. They don’t use Aristotelian language for the most part, though there have been Orthodox theologians who have done so under the influence of Western Catholic theology.
  2. The biggest difference is that they don’t practice Eucharistic adoration outside the context of the Liturgy. As I understand their position, though, they wouldn’t say that such adoration was idolatrous–in other words, they aren’t questioning that the elements continue to be the Body and Blood. They would just say that such adoration is beside the point–the purpose of the Eucharist is to be used sacramentally in the context of the Liturgy.
  3. They also seem dubious about some of the “Eucharistic miracles” reported in the West. I have heard Orthodox folks claim that such phenomena are likely to be demonic. However, that may be a particularly polemical claim–Orthodox vary widely in how harshly or gently they evaluate Western Christianity! Certainly such miracles do not seem to have a place in standard Orthodox Eucharistic spirituality.
Edwin
 
Esdra said:
Yeah, thanks. I reseacherd it in the meantime. 😉

But there I also found out that there are “real Anglicans” belonging to the Church of England also to be found in the US?..
Click to expand...
No. The American Anglicans who are not part of the Episcopal Church are not part of the Church of England. Indeed, they are not in communion with the Church of England at this point, though some of them seek such communion and are in communion with other parts of the Anglican Communion.

The present situation is messy and transitional. Unfortunately, “transitional” situations can last for quite a while. . . . .
 
Contarini said:
No. The American Anglicans who are not part of the Episcopal Church are not part of the Church of England. Indeed, they are not in communion with the Church of England at this point, though some of them seek such communion and are in communion with other parts of the Anglican Communion.

The present situation is messy and transitional. Unfortunately, “transitional” situations can last for quite a while. . . . .
Click to expand...
I agree with Contarini.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus
*
 
Esdra said:
Do you really know of a modern denomination that teaches so?
I mean, for me this sounds nearly like Gnosticism. And as far as I know, in the meantime there are no Gnostics anymore
Click to expand...
For those who remain Calvinists, yes, good for them.

But what about the others, who take the idea that things are only symbolic, and take the idea and apply it to scripture? As we know, many modern scriptural critics are casting into doubt the authorship and dating of many books of the NT. And they are asking, did Jesus really say that? Did Jesus really do that? They think, no, these stories and miracles are merely the interpolations and fabrications of Christians after the time of Jesus. Scripture itself, by these liberals, is being treated as symbolic! Ultimately, God, too, becomes a symbol. These modernists have had a lot of influence upon the thinking of many so-called Christians.

So, that is my premise. Zwingli’s natural-man thinking of the Eucharist as symbolic opens the Pandora’s Box to taking that notion further–baptism become symbolic, the resurrection becomes symbolic. The Church becomes symbolic. It is a reductive process until the whole notion of God and scripture becomes symbolic.

Natural man, modern man, discovers it is easier, and perhaps more ‘reasonable,’ and ‘scientific,’ to view difficult beliefs as symbols only.
Click to expand...
 
No, I don’t know of a denomiation that teaches so. Although there are odd groups such as the Unitarians which I don’t know what all they teach. (If they believe anything.)
But that is not the point. Many modern liberal theologions have expressed opinions such as that the resurrection was merely a “taith happening” among the disicples. That is, the resurrection was not real, but symbolic. This occurs not only among modern liberals, but also among those thought to be orthodox, such as Murray Harris, in “From Grave to Glory.” Also among the admittedly non-orthodox Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Click to expand...
I also don’t know any. (Though it can be of course that the one or other Church in the East is Gnostic. I really don’t know.)
Uniterians, I believe to know, are very mixed Churches (Reformed, Lutheran and Methodist) and are mainline Christians.
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 wasstudying theology who was very liberal in the sense that he even started questionening if the Gospel really teaches what Jesus actually said and did. (He then resigned from the priesthood and then from the CC!)
Do we really want to talk about JW’s there? For me they are not really Christians…
Of course I am not talking about Reformed Christians. I am proud of them for holding fast to the physical resurrection. That is one Catholic tradition they retained. Indeed, denying the physical resurrection would be deemed a heresy by both Reformed and Catholic. But, once the ball has started rolling in thinking of some things as symbolic, others take it and carry it further, until now when some liberals think of the resurrection as symbolic. What we call Fundamentalism is a reaction against such as these liberals–rear-guard action to be sure, but nevertheless an attempt to thwart the effects of the modernists.
Click to expand...
Completely right.
So I guess your previous post (I had answered) more dealt with the mainline Protestant Churches, right?
Although I even don’t believe that in the Mainline Protestant Churches the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied. What people say or do in these Churches, that’s another story.
Actually, I also don’t really believe that this whole process has to do with denying the RP.
As you admitted, the Reformed Evangelical Church (and all other Evangelical Protestant Churches) will never come to the idea to call anything else of “Catholic doctrine” symbolic.
mackbrislawn said:
For those who remain Calvinists, yes, good for them.

But what about the others, who take the idea that things are only symbolic, and take the idea and apply it to scripture? As we know, many modern scriptural critics are** casting into doubt the authorship and dating of many books of the NT**. ** And they are asking, did Jesus really say that? Did Jesus really do that? They think, no, these stories and miracles are merely the interpolations and fabrications of Christians after the time of Jesus. Scripture itself, by these liberals, is being treated as symbolic! Ultimately, God, too, becomes a symbol.** These modernists have had a lot of influence upon the thinking of many so-called Christians.
Click to expand...
See above, that even can occur in the CC! (Which I would put in the same category as the Evangelical Protestant Churches!)
Of course they have. It’s far easier to see everything relative. You know, my dad is such a “liberal” (also influenced by the professor mentioned above.) The bold sections in this quote of yours is what my dad partly and his professor at that time believe!
But again: Does this really have to do with the denying of the RP?!
[So, that is my premise. Zwingli’s natural-man thinking of the Eucharist as symbolic opens the Pandora’s Box to taking that notion further–baptism become symbolic, the resurrection becomes symbolic. The Church becomes symbolic. It is a reductive process until the whole notion of God and scripture becomes symbolic.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think that within the CC (consider dad’s professor at the Catholic Theology Institute!) this may also have existed before Zwingli’s thinking that the Eucharist is symbolic?
Well, actually the Church is not really seen symbolic already, but invisible by most Protestants…
Baptism is also often seen as an outward sign by the Evangelicals.

But, at least in Evangelical Circles, I believe that God and the Scriptures will NEVER become symbolic. - Because if this ever happens the whole Christian religion will brake town, as the very basis of our belief will be no more.
As I said above, the story with the Mainline Protestants is another story. IMO.
Natural man, modern man, discovers it is easier, and perhaps more ‘reasonable,’ and ‘scientific,’ to view difficult beliefs as symbols only.
Click to expand...
You are 100% right on this one. (see my similar comment above! ;))

I mean, I can see your position as well, at least the parishoners answer after the transsubstitution, “Priest: The mystery of faith.” - "All: A – We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again. " (Source) **
[/quote]
 
Esdra said:
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 wasstudying theology who was very liberal in the sense that he even started questionening if the Gospel really teaches what Jesus actually said and did. (He then resigned from the priesthood and then from the CC!)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I meant to hit, “Review Post” but hit “Submit Reply” instead! So, I’ll try again when I have time.
 
Contarini said:
Well, it depends what you mean. I’ve heard another Reformation scholar (himself Reformed) say that the phrase “bare sign” is always used in the Reformation to describe the sacramental theology of someone else. In other words, no one wanted to use that kind of language to describe their own position. I think he has a point if you leave the Anabaptists out of it. Still, I think it’s fair to say that Ulrich Zwingli’s position is a basically symbolic one. Zwingli argued that the word “est” (This is my body) should be understood to mean “significat” (This signifies my body). He started arguing this in the early 1520s, and this led to a break between him and Luther–the first major split within the nascent Protestant movement.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Hi Edwin,
I appreciate your posts they are very informative:thumbsup:
Do you know when the first Catholic questioned the real presence? If i remember i think it was in the 11th century but I cant remember who it was. It caused quite a backlash within the church if i am remembering correctly. Do you know or am I confused on this one??
Thanks,
John
 
simspt said:
Hi Edwin,
I appreciate your posts they are very informative:thumbsup:
Do you know when the first Catholic questioned the real presence? If i remember i think it was in the 11th century but I cant remember who it was. It caused quite a backlash within the church if i am remembering correctly. Do you know or am I confused on this one??
Thanks,
John
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of Berengar of Tours (c. 999-1088)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top