question for evangelical Protestants..

[Albion]

Hi

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks

What's the conflict? The word "Eucharist," as I'm sure you know, means a thanksgiving. We know that the Early Church observed the Holy Meal and did it with a spirit of thanksgiving. How does that put distance between today's evangelical Protestants and the Early Church?

 

[2 King]

one of the dramatic inconsistancies of the RP position, is the neccessary reconsumption of the flesh and blood of Christ.

logically speaking, IF you MUST eat his flesh, and drink his blood, literally, to have life, then once should do it. Since Christ is all sufficient.... eating and drinking him repeatedly would be nothing more than redundancy.

IF however, it is a memorial, a symbol, repeation (at no fixed interval in my mind, but based on however often each group does it) makes far more sense.

That has much truth in it

 

[Albion]

one of the dramatic inconsistancies of the RP position, is the neccessary reconsumption of the flesh and blood of Christ.

logically speaking, IF you MUST eat his flesh, and drink his blood, literally, to have life, then once should do it. Since Christ is all sufficient.... eating and drinking him repeatedly would be nothing more than redundancy.

IF however, it is a memorial, a symbol, repeation (at no fixed interval in my mind, but based on however often each group does it) makes far more sense.

We need to overcome the juxtaposing of RP with symbolism. RP does not mean Transubstantiation. It only means that Christ is really present in some sense. In my church, for example, the RP is affirmed, but that presence is described as not carnal but entirely spiritual (or heavenly). In addition, I don't see why considering the Lord's Supper to be a memorial in any way negates or squeezes out any definition of what the elements (bread, wine) are, represent, or become.

 

[DeaconDean]

deleted to keep the peace

 

[Albion]

Uphill Battle: one of the dramatic inconsistancies of the RP position, is the neccessary reconsumption of the flesh and blood of Christ.

logically speaking, IF you MUST eat his flesh, and drink his blood, literally, to have life, then once should do it. Since Christ is all sufficient.... eating and drinking him repeatedly would be nothing more than redundancy.

IF however, it is a memorial, a symbol, repeation (at no fixed interval in my mind, but based on however often each group does it) makes far more sense.

I have to admit that I don't see the logic in that point that you do. One could just as easily argue that if you want to have a memorial, why repeat it? Once should do it. It's been memorialized, just as with memorial services we have for departed friends. We don't gather at the funeral home to repeat it every week. But on the other hand, we do not just eat one meal in a lifetime. We eat a meal three times a day, every day (more or less). Why so? However one answers that question, it can easily be applied to the idea of receiving the Holy Meal repeatedly.

 

[Uphill Battle]

We need to overcome the juxtaposing of RP with symbolism. RP does not mean Transubstantiation. It only means that Christ is really present in some sense. In my church, for example, the RP is affirmed, but that presence is described as not carnal but entirely spiritual (or heavenly). In addition, I don't see why considering the Lord's Supper to be a memorial in any way negates or squeezes out any definition of what the elements (bread, wine) are, represent, or become.

I see.

from my POV, Christ is present in some sense... but then, he is spiritual present WITHOUT the bread and wine. He's wherever two or three are gathered in his name. I think (and I hilight the word think) that claiming a neccessary presence within the bread and wine, somehow overlooks his omnipresence in the first place.

my previous statement, however, WAS indeed for those who consider it to be an ACTUALL piece of flesh/blood being consumed. I didn't want to say transub... because it doesn't cover the entire scope of the matter.

 

[Albion]

The problem I have with the doctrine regarding "transubstantiation":




i.e.:

1. Conversion of one substance into another.
2. In many Christian churches, the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same.

Is that it goes against what is taught in scripture in both the Old and New Testaments. It also infers that Jesus broke the law.

Fair enough, but the OP said nothing about Transubstantiation.

Are we to bring it into the discussion on the assumption that this is what the OP meant...or leave it out and adhere to the wording that was used? All I'm saying is that we need to distinguish between Real Presence and Transubstantiation, and that many people tend to confuse the two.

 

[DeaconDean]

Fair enough, but the OP said nothing about Transubstantiation.

Are we to bring it into the discussion on the assumption that this is what the OP meant...or leave it out and adhere to the wording that was used? All I'm saying is that we need to distinguish between Real Presence and Transubstantiation, and that many people tend to confuse the two.

That being the case, I'll delete my previous comments.

However, I have to agree with UB when he said:

He's wherever two or three are gathered in his name.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I have to admit that I don't see the logic in that point that you do. One could just as easily argue that if you want to have a memorial, why repeat it? Once should do it. It's been memorialized, just as with memorial services we have for departed friends. We don't gather at the funeral home to repeat it every week.

we memorialize a number of things on schedule. Birthdays. Aniversaries. Remembance day. (or veterans day) and in some cases, people DO have an annual memorial for departed loved ones.

But on the other hand, we do not just eat one meal in a lifetime. We eat a meal three times a day, every day (more or less). Why so?

because physically speaking, we must. But I think of Jesus' words "he who drinks of this living water will NEVER thirst again. Using the same imagery, how could someone who ate and drank of Christ, ever need to eat it again?

However one answers that question, it can easily be applied to the idea of receiving the Holy Meal repeatedly.

indeed... it's opposite points of view to the same thing. I'm just explaining how I see it.

 

[Albion]

I see.

from my POV, Christ is present in some sense... but then, he is spiritual present WITHOUT the bread and wine. He's wherever two or three are gathered in his name.

I understand, and that would not be RP.

I think (and I hilight the word think) that claiming a neccessary presence within the bread and wine, somehow overlooks his omnipresence in the first place.

I wouldn't see it that way. We can affirm both, can't we? In other matters in our lives we are aware of big truths--love, family, country, etc. -- on a daily or ongoing basis, and yet we set aside special observances for remembering those values.

my previous statement, however, WAS indeed for those who consider it to be an ACTUALL piece of flesh/blood being consumed. I didn't want to say transub... because it doesn't cover the entire scope of the matter.

You've lost me there, but the OP didn't ask about Transubstantiation, so why address it in particular instead of that which was asked? BTW, I think that the OP was rather poorly worded such that we aren't sure what the question was really getting at, and that leaves us to guess somewhat.

 

[Albion]

we memorialize a number of things on schedule. Birthdays. Aniversaries. Remembance day. (or veterans day) and in some cases, people DO have an annual memorial for departed loved ones.

But it's not necessary.

because physically speaking, we must. But I think of Jesus' words "he who drinks of this living water will NEVER thirst again. Using the same imagery, how could someone who ate and drank of Christ, ever need to eat it again?

All I'm saying is that the Last Supper was a meal, the Lord said to repeat it ("as oft"), and meals are an ongoing feature of our lives. We can think in mystical terms about never thirsting again (although he was speaking of something quite different in that case, IMO) but then we'd have to apply that to the rest of our observances and, to be logical, say that we don't need to do anything in an ongoing way, church services of any type included. I was just getting at the consistency in the argument.

 

[DeaconDean]

In post #2 of this thread, the OP stated:

From St Cyril of Jerusalem

On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take, eat: this is my body”. He took the cup, gave thanks and said: “Take, drink: this is my blood”. Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood?


Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.


Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understanding his words in a spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.


Under the old covenant there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.


Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.
You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.


May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that be contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

How does the bread and wine turn into the real presence?

And for the deleted reasons I mentioned previosly, I reject it.

To answer the OP's question:

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken?

Yes, they were mistaken.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BreadAlone]

Holy Communion is about more than memorializing the death of Christ. It is about communion, unity with Christ, yes, but more importantly with our brothers and sisters who are kneeling at the altar. It is a physical proclamation that we are one in spirit with each other under the Lord. Yes, where two or three are gathered Christ is there. But this is the acknowledgement that Christ is within us, moreover, we are within Christ as One.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I understand, and that would not be RP.

not in the defined sense, to the bread and wine, anyways.

I wouldn't see it that way. We can affirm both, can't we?

how? and then, do we get in to the affirmation of Jesus' presence in this object, or that object.... isn't that animism? (I'm not accusing of that, btw. I'm just trying to explain my woefully inadequate thought processes.)

You've lost me there, but the OP didn't ask about Transubstantiation, so why address it in particular instead of that which was asked? BTW, I think that the OP was rather poorly worded such that we aren't sure what the question was really getting at, and that leaves us to guess somewhat.

Well... making the safe assumption that a Roman Catholic would be speaking of transub when referring to RP, is all. an assumption, yes... but a pretty safe one!

 

[BreadAlone]

How does the bread and wine turn into the real presence?

They don't "turn into." Christ is spiritually present the same way He is present when two or three are gathered, but in a more significant and united way. See my post above.

 

[Albion]

In post #2 of this thread, the OP stated:



How does the bread and wine turn into the real presence?

My apologies. I must have hurried by post #2 after reading the OP. Ir appears from what you've shown here that when "RP" was mentioned in the OP, the writer meant to say "Transubstantiation." Many Catholics do think that Transubstantiation is RP and RP is Transubstantiation and that there is no difference. That makes the purpose of the OP clear, I think, and I apologize for posting unnecessary concerns on this matter in the attempt to be fair to the OP. So, I'd say to consider the thread to be about Transubstantiation and not about the RP which many evangelical Protestants believe in (although the author of the OP must not know this to be so).

To answer the OP's question:

Yes, they were mistaken.

I'd answer it differently. Transubstantiation WAS NOT a belief of the Apostolic Church. The belief came along only later. Therefore, an evangelical Protestant does indeed care how the Early Church worshipped, that form of worshiup and belief being, in reality, the present-day belief of many or most, if not all, evangelical Protestants.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In post #2 of this thread, the OP stated:



How does the bread and wine turn into the real presence?

And for the deleted reasons I mentioned previosly, I reject it. Yes, they taught wrongly.

God Bless

Till all are one.

It's the "turn into" that is what the RCC dogma is all about. For roughly 1000 years, Christians affirmed Real Presence. They embraced that in the Eucharistic Scriptures, the meaning of is is is. Christ IS present in the Holy Eucharist in SOME sense physically, literally - although they rejected that were were "cannibals" (an early persistent accusation toward Christians) or "drinking blood." Christ's Body and Blood is "there" in some literal, "real" sense. But CLEARLY there is mystery. For nearly 1000 years, the mystery was embraced. It is called "Real Presence." And it is still the position of the Orthodox and Lutheran churches (as well as some Anglicans and Methodists). I agree with the opening poster that this position is widely affirmed by the Catholic Church's "fathers." It is by the Orthodox and Lutheran "fathers" too.

But in the West, among Catholics, there arose a movement to merge secular knowledge with theology, and to try to explain away mystery (the RCC has always been very uncomfortable with mystery although it still uses the term). ONE question for Catholic Scholasticism was this mystery of Real Presense, especially why the mass (volumn, weight) of the elements does not increase at the moment of teh consecration and why the elements don't change in their appearance and taste. The East considered this question SILLY and wanted nothing to do with this, but this was the "stuff" of western, medieval Catholic "Scholasticism."

According to my Catholic teachers, beginning around the 9th century, ONE of the many theories Catholic Scholasticism developed was to combine two common secular, pagan ideas of the day (both long ago rejected and forgotten today) to develop a theory. This theory came to be known as Transubstantiation. It was pretty controversal at first, but became widely embraced in time. It was formally accepted in the 13th century and made dogma in the 16th.


These were the two secular theories that the western, medieval Catholic "Scholastics" embraced:

1. Alchemy. You'll recall from your high school chem class that this was a pre-science concept that elementary matter (we'd call it elements) can be changed from one to another via the use of magic and chemicals/herbs/etc. You'll recall changing lead into gold was the typical objective. This alchemy eventually gave birth to what we think of as chemistry today. Well, the fundamental idea in alchemy was called, "transubstantiation." It was a very specific, precise, technical term at the time to refer specifically to this alchemic concept. These Catholic Scholastics theorized that perhaps by some special power of the priest, by the words he pronounces and the jestures he does, there is an alchemic transubstantiation that happens - so that the bread undergoes this alchemic change and is now Body. Same with the bread. The RCC dogma gets its name and title from alchemy.

2. Aristotle. But there's still the appearance and taste problem! According to alchemy, it SHOULD have the properties of Body and Blood - so why doesn't it? Here, these western Catholics looked to a completely unrelated pagan idea popular at the time. Aristotle lived some centuries before Christ and was known for several of his ideas - one of which was "accidents." An "accident" is what we PRECEIVE in reality. Aristotle believed that what we PRECEIVE (we'd call this "properties") is not necessarily related to what actually is. ONE aspect of this is his theory that "accidents" could continue after the actual reality ceases. His illustration was lighting and thunder: we hear the sound after the lightening has actually ceased to exist. A person might look in a clear pool and see the reflection of a dead person (and not self) in which case the accident of the dead person is continuing after the person has ceased. Well, this is what happens in the Eucharist, these "Scholastics" theorized. The "accidents" of bread and wine continue after they cease to exist. Evidently, forever. And oddly, the accidents of bread and wine don't ever exist. Today, Catholics are apt to substitute other words for "accident" since this theory has long sense been rejected by modern science and very few today know Aristotle's concept and vocabulary for it. Terms like "symbol" or "substance" or "appearance" are used rather than the actual embrace (and eventually dogmatized) theory: Aristotelian Accidents.


AS A PURE MEDIEVAL THEORY, the concept might have some value, although I stand with the Orthodox in rejecting any need to explain away the mystery. I accept what Jesus said and Paul wrote as true because they said so - not because some Spanish monks looked to alchemy and Aristotle and found some interesting aspects to their theories. IF it had been left as these Catholic Scholastics intended - as just one theory - it likely would have disappeared right alone with the alchemy and Aristotelian theory that it embraced, and today the only ones that would have even heard of it would be church historians. But, the RCC didn't leave it as it was intended. It formally embraced it in 1215. And it couldn't leave it at that, it formally dogmatized alchemy and accidents in 1551 (largely as an tool to further anathmatize Luther who did not accept transubstantiation as doctrine but DID passionately accept Real Presence as mystery).


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

They don't "turn into." Christ is spiritually present the same way He is present when two or three are gathered, but in a more significant and united way. See my post above.

(looking at your faith icon) However, Lutheran churches do hold, with Luther, that a change does happen, and the Real Presence in the bread and wine does occur.

 

[DeaconDean]

Holy Communion is about more than memorializing the death of Christ. It is about communion, unity with Christ, yes, but more importantly with our brothers and sisters who are kneeling at the altar. It is a physical proclamation that we are one in spirit with each other under the Lord. Yes, where two or three are gathered Christ is there. But this is the acknowledgement that Christ is within us, moreover, we are within Christ as One.

So, its more about the service than communing with God on a daily basis. (It is about communion)

We have to partake of communion in order to show Christ residing in us. (unity with Christ) Both to the world, and our brothers and sisters. (with our brothers and sisters )

Rather than having the Spirits testimony of us, we need the communions testimony of us. (It is a physical proclamation that we are one in spirit with each other under the Lord. Yes, where two or three are gathered Christ is there. But this is the acknowledgement that Christ is within us, moreover, we are within Christ as One.)

All this is only accomplished though communion.


ahuh.

Ok if you say so.

My presence here can only serve to disrupt the peace and harmony here, therefore, let me say that whatever your beliefs are on this matter, they are yours, and evidently you have been blessed by them. The same applies to me. AS to the real presence in the bread and wine, no I personally do not believe it as it goes against scriptural teachings. However, if that is your beliefs, God bless you, and I sincerely mean that. They just are not mine.

I shall bow out gracefully.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Trento]

I suppose I disbelieve, at least in the notion that the "Presence" is in the elements themselves, rather than in the celebrants and the event.

I am also not particularly impressed with the idea that it is a "sacrament," or that it must be administered by some special "priestly class."





By "believed in the Eucharist," I take it from later in the thread that you mean, "believed in the 'Real Presence' in the Eucharist."

*Assuming* that the "early Church" did believe that, no, I don't consider it particularly important. For me, Scripture is primary. Reason, experience, and tradition, usually in about that order, are helpful in interpreting and applying Scripture.





As others have noted, I am quite sure that the early Church was mistaken about many things. Much of the NT comprises corrections to such errors. It would not at all surprise me if numerous other errors occurred after the last Scriptures were recorded, but that we don't have "inspired" records of them and their refutations.

The same 5th-century Church whose judgment you are prepared to rely on unreservedly when it comes to the canon of Scripture already exhibited quite explicitly Patristic evidence recognition of the ELEMENTS AS CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD. If these Fathers believed that the Eucharist was not Christ's body and blood then certainly they would have commented on the error . It was practiced by the defenders and promoters of the Nicene Creed: the Fathers who had suffered, struggled, and died for the doctrine of the Trinity, the full divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. These doctrines most Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians still hold in common. The witness, therefore, of these Christian giants must be taken as more than simply the doctrine of men.

It is obvious and logical for anyone studying the History of the early Church that these men accepted the True presance of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Protestant Patristic scholars come to the same conclusion.

Philip Schaff wrote about the Ante-Nicene patristic period:

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim . . .

The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and the early liturgies, whose testimony we shall further cite below. They speak in enthusiastic and extravagant terms of the sacrament and sacrifice of the altar. They teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ, which is included in the very idea of a real sacrifice, and they see in the mystical union of it with the sensible elements a sort of repetition of the incarnation of the Logos. With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, . . ."

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492-495)
​

Schaff continues in his next section:

The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question."

(§ 96. "The Sacrifice of the Eucharist")

Here are the conclusions of Protestant Bibical scholars Darwell Stone,and JND Kelly


Darwell Stone's Conclusion of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

"...THROUGHOUT the writers of the period the identification of the ELEMENTS WITH THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST appears to be the ruling idea."
"The belief that the Eucharist IS A SACRIFICE is found EVERYWHERE. This belief is coupled with strong repudiations of carnal sacrifices; and is saved from being Judaic by the recognition of the ELEMENTS AS CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD, of the union of the action of the Church on earth with that of Christ in heaven, and of the spiritual character of that whole priestly life and service and action of the community as the body of Christ which is a distinguishing mark of the Christian system." (A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, volume 1, page 54, emphasis added)

​

JND Kelly's Summary of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

"....the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist....It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper....Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ's body....Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]....So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord's real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5].....The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)

​

There can be no sacrifice without the body being there.

​