Why did early Christians believe in the Real Presence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CampionTheChampion

Guest
I’m convinced that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence, but I’m not sure why. Does anybody know? I doubt that Jesus explicitly taught of the Real Presence as this is beyond what is recorded in the Gospels.

So, why did early Christians believe in the Real Presence?

Edit: I changed a sentence which made no sense…I must have been tired when I wrote this post.
 
Last edited:
Actually, precisely because He stated explicitly that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood. The Gospel of John is very clear on this point.

“My flesh is real food. My blood is real drink.”
 
CampionTheChampion said:
I doubt it is because Jesus explicitly taught it beyond what is recorded in the Gospels.
Click to expand...
That would have been difficult since he died within days after he instituted the Eucharist!!
That’s why we have the Gospel and the teachings by the Apostles and their successors.
 
You are convinced correctly. There was Catholicism 200 years before the New Testament was put to paper. Christ did not send out the Apostles specifically to write a book. He told them to teach what he had taught them.
 
Jesus told them, “This is my Body” and they had all the right historical context and the teaching after the resurrection to see.

He broke bread and their eyes were opened…
 
Read John 6: 50-69

Jesus said they must eat His flesh. People complained, not believing what He said, many walked away. Jesus asked His disciples if they would go away also.

Verse 68 “Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

If He did not mean to give His flesh, He would have told the people differently.
 
I don’t see any of the early Christians making the arguments for the Real Presence that you guys make above. If you know of anyone who made one of those arguments let me know.
 
Because His apostles, particularly Paul, emphasized it in their letters. Aside from that, the early Christians had the great privilege of having had physical contact with the apostles. They were able to ask them anything they wanted to, and heard more from them besides what letters we have that survived.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
I don’t see any of the early Christians making the arguments for the Real Presence that you guys make above. If you know of anyone who made one of those arguments let me know.
Click to expand...
The testimony of the early Christians makes the argument, that’s the meaning of New Testament.

Have you read the testimony recorded by John 6: 50-69? To me, it’s pretty clear. 🙂
 
Luke 24 The apostles on the way to Emmaus (after Jesus had been crucified) spent the whole day walking with Jesus but they didn’t recognise him until he was breaking the bread in the evening. “Their eyes were opened.”

In John 6 Jesus doesn’t explain “This in my body … blood.” to the apostles as he did with all other stories and teaching when they had asked him what it meant.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
I don’t see any of the early Christians making the arguments for the Real Presence that you guys make above. If you know of anyone who made one of those arguments let me know.
Click to expand...
I dont see any reason for early Christians to make this argument in favor of the real presence. There has to be someone opposing the position before someone makes the argument in favor. Do you know of anyone making this argument aginst the real presence?

Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
Beyond the Gospels in the Book of Acts, we see the
early disciples DEVOTING themselves to the “Breaking
of Bread” Acts 2:42; 20:11, so it is QUITE evident that
it is a central doctrine of the Early Church, that and the
FACT that Jesus COMMANDED them to “take, eat, this
IS my Body” Matt. 26:26
 
CampionTheChampion said:
I’m convinced that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence, but I’m not sure why. Does anybody know? I doubt it is because Jesus explicitly taught it beyond what is recorded in the Gospels.

So, why did early Christians believe in the Real Presence?
Click to expand...
It is a mystery to me how it is you do not see Jesus teaching this in the Gospels. How do you understand Jn. 6?

Do you think the Last Supper was “symbolic”?

I think the best answer to your question is what the Early Fathers had to say for themselves.

 
CampionTheChampion said:
I don’t see any of the early Christians making the arguments for the Real Presence that you guys make above. If you know of anyone who made one of those arguments let me know.
Click to expand...
Jesus makes the first argument in John 6, and shortly after Jesus’ death, there was already controversy over the Real Presence. Ignatius begins writing early at the turn of the first century against the “heretics” who deny the Real Presence.

 
To be fair it wasn’t so much that they explicitly denied the Eucharist, but that they denied Christ had any body at all (so obviously the Eucharist, at least under the form of bread, was absent).
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
To be fair it wasn’t so much that they explicitly denied the Eucharist, but that they denied Christ had any body at all (so obviously the Eucharist, at least under the form of bread, was absent).
Click to expand...
Good point. I hadn’t thought of that one.
 
guanophore said:
It is a mystery to me how it is you do not see Jesus teaching this in the Gospels. How do you understand Jn. 6?

Do you think the Last Supper was “symbolic”?

I think the best answer to your question is what the Early Fathers had to say for themselves.

What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence | Catholic Answers
Click to expand...
I’m struggling because I grew up reading it as figurative. It is pretty easy to read through it that way, you know. It’s hard to say it is necessarily literal from the text alone.
 
CampionTheChampion said:
I’m struggling because I grew up reading it as figurative. It is pretty easy to read through it that way, you know. It’s hard to say it is necessarily literal from the text alone.
Click to expand...
I understand. Perhaps reading the Early Fathers will help?

What you are describing here is a false dichotomy that is a common Reformed error in interpretation. The opposite of “literal” is not “figurative” or metaphorical. This false hermeneutic principle sets spiritual realities against physical realities falsely.

In the case of the Chrisitian mysteries, there are spiritual aspects and physical aspects, but both are literal (real). things are not “figurative” just because they are spiritual in nature.

It might help to acknowledge that both things are true. What you have been taught about the “figurative” meaning is true, and it is also true that the “literal” (physical) aspect is true.

Scott Hahn, a convert from “figurative” may be helpful:


He has a YouTube series also:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top