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

[Timothy17]

I think such is “obvious” only to those who desperately need to find some hint of a belief in a real somatic presence in Augustine’s works.

I believe what I have presented thus far can fairly be said to constitute a “hint of belief” in the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, the Mass as Sacrifice, et al, and if not in those clear doctrines that presently exist, at least in the necessary ideas prerequisite to and for these doctrines.

Yep, and to quote Wills (quoting van der Meer), in “all of Augustine’s hundreds of sermons delivered at the eucharistic meal, ‘he does not speak of a real presence’ in the bread and wine.” (Papal Sins p. 143)

I agree, he does not assert that, nor have I provided a quote of him saying this ; rather, he asserts much more importantly that Christ Himself is necessarily present to offer to God the sacrifice of the Christians, one, and two, that the Church herself is offered up to God in this sacrifical offering, which Church is the very Body of Christ. So Christ Himself is offering Himself up to God, and this is not a fact relinquished to time and place, as purely in a memorial, but as the Saint said, “is our sacrifice,” which “the Church ***continually celebrates ***in the sacrament of the altar.” Altars are for the use of sacrifices, and whatever is upon the altar is the object of sacrifice. For Catholics, the Altar is also the Lord’s Table : it is both Golgotha (the place of the skull ; i.e., a relic, in Our Lord’s case, it was believed to be Adam’s skull) as well as the Lord’s Banquet, His Supper. Life (Supper, communion) and death (sacrifice) meet here. These two ideas are necessarily conjoined, and fused, as it was Christ Himself Who established this. These things, seemingly diametrically opposed to one another create, naturally, great mental difficulty to reconcile : life becoming death ; death, life.

Word after word after word was written by Augustine, and yet the scholars (that I quoted) don’t find evidence of a belief in a somatic real presence. Is there any wonder as to why certain Protestants could feel justified in using Augustine to argue against a real somatic presence?

It is a wonder, but if you are seeking for a clearly defined doctrine I submit you will not find one (as it had not yet been formulated as such) in the Early Church, but “only” those foundational ideas and teachings that necessarily lend themselves to the present doctrine. I assert that the doctrines of the Real Presence must naturally follow from what these Saints and Doctors of the Early Church taught, otherwise it is nonsense at worst or hyperbole at best.

Pax, back at you Tim

Thank you,
And the Lord’s peace be with you also,
Tim

 

[Radical]

“That God may be all in all.”
Unless we are exluding things from “all,” it would appear this is exactly what God desires ; i.e., to be found in all things.

This sounds oddly Pantheistic…are you suggesting God desires to be found in everything from bird droppings to back bacon? Further, it also seems as if you have negated any significance to Christ’s alleged bodily presence at your Eucharist. If you make no distinction between his presence at your Eucharist and his presence in all (other) things, then what is all the fuss about? … he would be present in the Suppers of the Protestants too. It is precisely b/c you claim a unique presence for your Eucharist, that you must be able to distinguish that alleged presence from whatever presence exists in the rest of creation.

What is the difference between a Christian man and a virtuous pagan man ?

It is a spiritual difference, right? One possesses the Spirit of Christ and the other does not…so how does the recognition of a spiritual transformation go an inch toward establishing the transubstantiation of bread into a real somatic presence?.. or toward finding the (proto?)idea of such in Augustine’s works?

But this is enitrely untenable. You must earn your namesake here and radically divorce Christ from His Body and imagine the two are entirely seperate and distinct.

No, not at all. One must simply recognize how a metaphor works. The Church is God’s building (1 Cor 3:9), it is God’s field (1 Cor 3:9), it is the bride of Christ, it is the body of Christ (with some members being things such as eyes within the head at 1 Cor 12), and it is the body of Christ (with Christ, himself as the head at Col 1:18). One should understand these as the metaphors that they are and not think that somehow the Church is not distinct from the body that hung on the cross. These things described in the various metaphors are not equated and understood literally such that we are to now believe that Christ as a building weds himself as a field.

The Apostle does not provide us with a metaphor, but a clear and obvious definition, he says the Church is the Body of Christ, and we are the members of that Body.

If it isn’t a metaphor, then some of us would actually be the left ear lobe of our Lord. Is that how you would understand 1 Cor 12:16? Seems more than bizarre to me. Is this the type of bodily presence that assert for your Eucharist? Is it that Christ is bodily present in the same manner and degree by which a particular new convert is incorporated in and becomes part of the Lord’s left ear lobe?

To say that the ECF’s believed we offered up the Church, but not the Body of Christ, is to imagine they defined these two things as being two entirely seperate, unrelated and distinct entities.

Yes, the Church is connected to the body of Christ, but your statement itself demonstrates your problem. As you indicate, the Church and the (physical) body of Christ are two things. They are not one thing with two names, but are two distinct (though not entirely unrelated) things. As such, to offer one is not to simultaneously offer the other.

I was demonstrating how the idea was clearly already present in this Bishop’s work. I did not say that it was encapsulated as in a doctrine, but that the necessary and prerequisite idea is clearly seen in St. Augustine’s beliefs on sacrifice,

“the congregation or community of saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest”
He is asserting this as fact. He is saying “the community of saints is offered to God as our sacrifice,” which begs the question, how is this done ? As if in anticipation of this question, the Saint writes immediately following that bold statement, “through the great High Priest,” which is clearly and obviously Christ Himself, as St Paul’s letter to the Hebrews evinces. No one doubts that he is here and now refering to the “sacrament of the altar,” as later he clearly says, “in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.” Who officiates the offering ?

Why ask who officiates? The Church ** makes ** the offering herself. The Church is the body of Christ and the one officiating is but a very small part of the body of Christ. If you are trying to find the High Priest at the Supper look to the entire congregation as it is the Body of Christ. Eliminate the priest and the body of Christ is still there.

 

[Radical]

“That God may be all in all.”
Unless we are exluding things from “all,” it would appear this is exactly what God desires ; i.e., to be found in all things.

This sounds oddly Pantheistic…are you suggesting God desires to be found in everything from bird droppings to back bacon? Further, it also seems as if you have negated any significance to Christ’s alleged bodily presence at your Eucharist. If you make no distinction between his presence at your Eucharist and his presence in all (other) things, then what is all the fuss about? … he would be present in the Suppers of the Protestants too. It is precisely b/c you claim a unique presence for your Eucharist that you must be able to distinguish that alleged presence from whatever presence exists in the rest of creation.

What is the difference between a Christian man and a virtuous pagan man ?

It is a spiritual difference, right? One possesses the Spirit of Christ and the other does not…so how does the recognition of a spiritual transformation go an inch toward establishing the transubstantiation of bread into real somatic presence?.. or toward finding the (proto?)idea of such in Augustine’s works?

But this is enitrely untenable. You must earn your namesake here and radically divorce Christ from His Body and imagine the two are entirely seperate and distinct.

No, not at all. One must simply recognize how a metaphor works. The Church is God’s building (1 Cor 3:9), it is God’s field (1 Cor 3:9), it is the bride of Christ, it is the body of Christ (with some members being things such as eyes within the head at 1 Cor 12), and it is the body of Christ (with Christ, himself as the head at Col 1:18). One should understand these as the metaphors that they are and not think that somehow the Church is not distinct from the body that hung on the cross. These things described in the various metaphors are not equated and understood literally such that we are to now believe that Christ as a building weds himself as a field.

The Apostle does not provide us with a metaphor, but a clear and obvious definition, he says the Church is the Body of Christ, and we are the members of that Body.

If it isn’t a metaphor, then some of us would actually be the left ear lobe of our Lord. Is that how you would understand 1 Cor 12:16? Seems more than bizarre to me. Is this the type of bodily presence that assert for your Eucharist? Is it that Christ is bodily present in the same manner and degree by which a particular new convert is incorporated in and becomes part of the Lord’s left ear lobe?

To say that the ECF’s believed we offered up the Church, but not the Body of Christ, is to imagine they defined these two things as being two entirely seperate, unrelated and distinct entities.

Yes, the Church is connected to the body of Christ, but your statement itself demonstrates your problem. As you indicate, the Church and the (physical) body of Christ are two things. They are not one thing with two names, but are two distinct (though not entirely unrelated) things. As such, to offer one is not to simultaneously offer the other.

I was demonstrating how the idea was clearly already present in this Bishop’s work. I did not say that it was encapsulated as in a doctrine, but that the necessary and prerequisite idea is clearly seen in St. Augustine’s beliefs on sacrifice,

“the congregation or community of saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest”
He is asserting this as fact. He is saying “the community of saints is offered to God as our sacrifice,” which begs the question, how is this done ? As if in anticipation of this question, the Saint writes immediately following that bold statement, “through the great High Priest,” which is clearly and obviously Christ Himself, as St Paul’s letter to the Hebrews evinces. No one doubts that he is here and now refering to the “sacrament of the altar,” as later he clearly says, “in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.” Who officiates the offering ?

Why ask who officiates? The Church ** makes ** the offering herself. The Church is the body of Christ and the one officiating is but a very small part of the body of Christ. If you trying to find the High Priest at the Supper look to the entire congregation as it is the Body of Christ. Eliminate the priest and the body of Christ is still there.

 

[Radical]

“That God may be all in all.”
Unless we are exluding things from “all,” it would appear this is exactly what God desires ; i.e., to be found in all things.

This sounds oddly Pantheistic…are you suggesting God desires to be found in everything from bird droppings to back bacon? Further, it also seems as if you have negated any significance to Christ’s alleged bodily presence at your Eucharist. If you make no distinction between his presence at your Eucharist and his presence in all (other) things, then what is all the fuss about? … he would be present in the Suppers of the Protestants too. It is precisely b/c you claim a unique presence for your Eucharist that you must be able to distinguish that alleged presence from whatever presence exists in the rest of creation.

What is the difference between a Christian man and a virtuous pagan man ?

It is a spiritual difference, right? One possesses the Spirit of Christ and the other does not…so how does the recognition of a spirtual transformation go an inch toward establishing the transubstantiation of bread into a real somatic presence?.. or toward finding the (proto?)idea of such in Augustine’s works?

But this is enitrely untenable. You must earn your namesake here and radically divorce Christ from His Body and imagine the two are entirely seperate and distinct.

No, not at all. One must simply recognize how a metaphor works. The Church is God’s building (1 Cor 3:9), it is God’s field (1 Cor 3:9), it is the bride of Christ, it is the body of Christ (with some members being things such as eyes within the head at 1 Cor 12), and it is the body of Christ (with Christ, himself as the head at Col 1:18). One should understand these as the metaphors that they are and not think that somehow the Church is not distinct from the body that hung on the cross. These things described in the various metaphors are not equated and understood literally such that we are to now believe that Christ as a building weds himself as a field.

The Apostle does not provide us with a metaphor, but a clear and obvious definition, he says the Church is the Body of Christ, and we are the members of that Body.

If it isn’t a metaphor, then some of us would actually be the left ear lobe of our Lord. Is that how you would understand 1 Cor 12:16? Seems more than bizarre to me. Is this the type of bodily presence that assert for your Eucharist? Is it that Christ is bodily present in the same manner and degree by which a particular new convert is incorporated in and becomes part of the Lord’s left ear lobe?

To say that the ECF’s believed we offered up the Church, but not the Body of Christ, is to imagine they defined these two things as being two entirely seperate, unrelated and distinct entities.

Yes, the Church is connected to the body of Christ, but your statement itself demonstrates your problem. As you indicate, the Church and the (physical) body of Christ are two things. They are not one thing with two names, but are two distinct (though not entirely unrelated) things. As such, to offer one is not to simultaneously offer the other.

I was demonstrating how the idea was clearly already present in this Bishop’s work. I did not say that it was encapsulated as in a doctrine, but that the necessary and prerequisite idea is clearly seen in St. Augustine’s beliefs on sacrifice,

“the congregation or community of saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest”
He is asserting this as fact. He is saying “the community of saints is offered to God as our sacrifice,” which begs the question, how is this done ? As if in anticipation of this question, the Saint writes immediately following that bold statement, “through the great High Priest,” which is clearly and obviously Christ Himself, as St Paul’s letter to the Hebrews evinces. No one doubts that he is here and now refering to the “sacrament of the altar,” as later he clearly says, “in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to God.” Who officiates the offering ?

Why ask who officiates? The Church ** makes ** the offering herself. The Church is the body of Christ and the one officiating is but a very small part of the body of Christ. If you are trying to find the High Priest at the Supper look to the entire congregation as it is the Body of Christ. Eliminate the priest and the body of Christ is still there.

 

[Radical]

I believe what I have presented thus far can fairly be said to constitute a “hint of belief” in the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, the Mass as Sacrifice, et al, and if not in those clear doctrines that presently exist, at least in the necessary ideas prerequisite to and for these doctrines.

I don’t know how this would differ from claiming that the prerequisites to and for the rules of Canadian football can be found in the game of tag. Man’s imagination has almost a limitless ability to build up layer upon layer of concepts upon an earlier idea. It also seems to suffer from the inclination to do so. With that in mind it is not surprising that you could find in Augustine’s works a “hint of belief” in your doctrines…I expect one could find a “hint of belief” in any number of heretical doctrines in Augustine’s works by simply adding layer upon layer.

It is a wonder, but if you are seeking for a clearly defined doctrine I submit you will not find one (as it had not yet been formulated as such) in the Early Church, but “only” those foundational ideas and teachings that necessarily lend themselves to the present doctrine. I assert that the doctrines of the Real Presence must naturally follow from what these Saints and Doctors of the Early Church taught, otherwise it is nonsense at worst or hyperbole at best.

It seems to be hyperbole from pious imaginations combined with a preference to describe spiritual realities utilizing figures of speech…yes, and sometimes it ran into nonsense. I see no reason to assume that the ECFs were somehow immune from the deficiencies that plague men of today.

Cheers, and Peace.

 

[agent_grey]

Shortly before the reformation began. We know this by the Plague that was allowed to be unleashed upon mankind on account of the people that where recieveing communion and not believing.

 

[larkin31]

So, the answer to the OP question seems to be, “Early, in the 1520s”. Right?

 

[larkin31]

And of course not the Justinian Plague of Constantinople, the first known major outbreak of bubonic plague (6-7th centuries).

 

[JonNC]

Shortly before the reformation began. We know this by the Plague that was allowed to be unleashed upon mankind on account of the people that where recieveing communion and not believing.

Wait a minute. Shortly before the Reformation began?

How many Protestants were there before the Reformation began?

If, in fact, Martin Luther is the “father of the Reformation”, and Luther affirmed quite ardently the real presence, then those who deny it came later. Obviously!

Jon

 

[larkin31]

I am fairly certain, furthermore, that Catholic posters have written here that claiming that God punishes modern humanity through disease and disaster is expressly against CC doctrine. Am I right?

 

[rinnie]

I am fairly certain, furthermore, that Catholic posters have written here that claiming that God punishes modern humanity through disease and disaster is expressly against CC doctrine. Am I right?

What th e CC teaches is that all that are in Christ will also suffer and carry their cross also. There is no disease or disaster that could be as bad as death of the soul.

Christ was the only Man that came into this world not to live but to die. God sent his only Son to die for our sins so that we can have eternal life in him. If you believe that you have eternal life in Christ and will live forever with him why would diseases or disasters really matter anyway? So you get a disease and die to this world and you gain eternal life in the world of Christ! If that is what is chosen for you by Christ who are you are we to question it?

Why do you feel that suffering is against CC doctrine? Where did you ever get that idea? Where did the word of God ever say that only the evil suffer? Where did the word of God say that only sinner’s suffer.

God was sinless, and perfect and still suffered in this world for us. What makes you think that there will be no suffering in this world? The Church never taught it. As long as there is sin and evil in this world it will bring on suffering of all kinds.

What makes you think that sin and evil does not bring on the diseases of this world and disasters? Why do you feel God does it? Do you not feel responsible for your sins in this world and the disasters they have caused in the lives of people? Or do you feel you have no sins to confess and repent?

 

[rinnie]

I am fairly certain, furthermore, that Catholic posters have written here that claiming that God punishes modern humanity through disease and disaster is expressly against CC doctrine. Am I right?

And actually what the Church teaches is that God can make good out of all bads. While God does not will a bad, he can bring great thing’s out of it. Even suffering.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great point, Rinnie

And actually what the Church teaches is that God can make good out of all bads. While God does not will a bad, he can bring great thing’s out of it. Even suffering.

 

[TimothyH]

better than some Catholics I know!

And some worse. We are all sinners. There was no need for that cheap shot.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I’m coming in a bit late to say the least and have read all but the longest posts. I apologize if I am coming at it from an oblique angle and admit I know little of Augustine’s position on the real presence but…

I’m wondering if anyone has brought up the Justin Martyr’s First apology circa 150 AD.

**For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. **Sorry to stick my nose into ya’lls private fight. Carry on.

-Tim-

 

[CMatt25]

When? It might depend on who you ask. As I’ve even seen others argue there was disbelief as far back as the early fathers. One example I’ve seen given is when Clement said, “Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit”

earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

 

[rinnie]

This is a little off topic but It think it is of some value to what we are talking about?

Does anyone know when Judas first betrayed Jesus? Read it, its in the bible. Judas was I would say the first protestant to start disbelieving in the Real Eucharist if you consider a protestant what I was told a Protestant was. (to protest the truth, or more or less not able to accept it) But anyway don’t want to start anything want to show you guys something.

Anyway what I want to show you is when Jesus said he was the BREAD that came down from heaven, he was the SON OF GOD the WORD that became FLESH.

Think of those words he said them alot, the word that became flesh, then he said eat my flesh, my body to have eternal life. That is when the devil first began to enter into Judas, He snapped. He could not handle that. Then when Jesus not only said it again, but at the last supper did it, and offered it up. What did Judas do? He took off.

When I was a kid at 16 and first got my license Me and my bro would leave right after communion, well one Sunday Papa was there and saw us do it.

Thats when he said are you two Judas’s. We were like huh? He said yes, Judas was the one who ran away also at the Last supper right before he betrayed Jesus. Well needless to say, I know now what he meant!!

Oh and by the way I STAY NOW:blush:

 

[rinnie]

When? It might depend on who you ask. As I’ve even seen others argue there was disbelief as far back as the early fathers. One example I’ve seen given is when Clement said, “Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit”

earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

If the flesh represents the Holy Spirit then do you deny that God is one in being with the Holy Spirit also?? Think about it CMatt!!

But you are right the Eucharist is the Living Christ in the form of bread by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Wasn’t it John Calvin who brought the idea [back actually] that communion was through the Holy Spirit?

 

[rinnie]

Wasn’t it John Calvin who brought the idea [back actually] that communion was through the Holy Spirit?

What is sad is who took it away??