Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:42 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 209
Religion: Catholic
This may be a very hard question to answer, or perhaps easier than I imagine with deeper theological training. I am looking to dig in to the original detractors of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

http://www.a2z.org/acts/articles/euch.htm

The above link is just a small bit of church father information, but it does have some original clues to who these people were. Only in as much as they were known "Christians?" and ate and drank themselves or refused to eat at all in condemnation of themselves if they really identified themselves as Christian.

So what I am after is the beginning of, introduction of, this heresy. I want to see how this began, by who or whom within a given sect/denomination/person. I simply want to know what and how they originated this thought after (as early as some of the earliest church fathers) were told by Christ in only the very recent past to eat his body and drink his blood for salvation.

As I said, it seems like it should be a no brainer to name them who began this foolishness, but either i'm not asking the right questions to google or am asking the question incorrectly because i can't seem to get to the root of this evil and I'd very much like to read in to the mindset of those who so erroneously, originally defame the words of the Son of God.

The Protestant reformers had mentors ... who were they and what did they propose, how and when?

Can someone lead me in the right direction please?

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:52 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 75643
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
The Gnostics rejected the Eucharist because they believed that physical matter was evil, these are the people being referred to in the passage from St. Ignatius referred to above.


Between the Gnostics and the early Protestants, the only ones who seemed to reject the Eucharist were Berengarius of Tours, who retracted his views when they were condemned as heresy in the 11th century, and the Lollards, who were the follows of John Wycliffe in England in the 14th century. Wycliffe's own writings are notoriously obscure and it is nearly impossible to figure out what he was actually talking about, all we know is how his followers interpreted him, and they interpreted him as rejecting the Eucharist.

An excellent, though dated, source is 'The History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist' by Darwell Stone, a massive two-volume tome which provides probably the most complete history ever written on the subject. Stone's conclusion is that between the Gnostics of the first and second centuries, and Berengerius of Tours in the 11th century, no one rejected either the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist or its sacrificial nature and that before Wycliffe, no one rejected the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

_________________
Excelsior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78342
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The 80s called. They want their website design back. That site is nearly unreadable! It's also wrong with respect to the word "Eucharist," which means "Thanksgiving." Where it came from is irrelevant (look up where "nice" comes from).

We don't have a lot of information about the people against whom (for example) St. Ignatius was writing. They haven't survived and no one preserved their writings (if any).

Doom posted while I was writing. It's possible that it was the Gnostics whom St. Ignatius had in mind, but I'm not as certain of it as he is.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:45 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4474
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Hey, if distressed jeans can be a thing again, why can't . . . ehrm . . . distressed websites? :-/

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 6009
Religion: Christian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

_________________
But our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, Philippians 3:20


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:10 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 18782
Doom wrote:
The Gnostics rejected the Eucharist because they believed that physical matter was evil, these are the people being referred to in the passage from St. Ignatius referred to above.


Between the Gnostics and the early Protestants, the only ones who seemed to reject the Eucharist were Berengarius of Tours, who retracted his views when they were condemned as heresy in the 11th century, and the Lollards, who were the follows of John Wycliffe in England in the 14th century. Wycliffe's own writings are notoriously obscure and it is nearly impossible to figure out what he was actually talking about, all we know is how his followers interpreted him, and they interpreted him as rejecting the Eucharist.

An excellent, though dated, source is 'The History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist' by Darwell Stone, a massive two-volume tome which provides probably the most complete history ever written on the subject. Stone's conclusion is that between the Gnostics of the first and second centuries, and Berengerius of Tours in the 11th century, no one rejected either the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist or its sacrificial nature and that before Wycliffe, no one rejected the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.



Ratramnus?

_________________
"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 209
Religion: Catholic
Yes GKC, quite correct ...

Quote:
Berengarius maintained the doctrine that in the Holy Eucharist the bread is converted into the real body of Christ, into the very body which was born of Mary and crucified.


Quote:
It was about 1047 that the teaching of Berengarius touching the Holy Eucharist began to attract attention. In the Eucharistic controversy of the ninth century, Radbert Paschasius, afterwards abbot of Corbie, in his De Corpore et Sanguine Domini (831), had maintained the doctrine that in the Holy Eucharist the bread is converted into the real body of Christ, into the very body which was born of Mary and crucified. Ratramnus, a monk of the same abbey, defended the opinion that in the Holy Eucharistthere is no conversion of the bread; that the body of Christ is, nevertheless, present, but in a spiritual way; that it is not therefore the same as that born of Mary and crucified.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02487a.htm

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Last edited by Essential Sacrifice on Sun May 27, 2018 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:23 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 75643
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
GKC wrote:
Ratramnus?


He was a supporter/defender of Berengarius, and therefore would be included with Berengarius in the general history. Darwell Stone's book is very old, although I did get its name wrong earlier, it is 'The History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist', it was published in 1909, but to my knowledge, his thesis has never been refuted, and no one else has ever written a longer or more extensive treatise on the same subject.


At any rate, the Berengarius controversy is inflated, it was not significant, a new theory was offered, it was condemned, and Berengarius retracted it with little lasting effect, as it was forgotten until being rediscovered sometime after the Reformation. It is usually included in histories of doctrine simply for the sake of completeness, not because it was important.

I think that intellectuals and scholars tend to overestimate the importance of intellectuals and scholars. If a philosopher in the year 1600 named Bob Smith said something, and then in the year 1900, another philosopher name Bill Jones says something that sounds kind of similar, scholars conclude that 'Jones was influenced by Smith', but that's not necessarily true, and in most cases, it is false.

When Donald Trump offered his tax cut bill last year, it contained proposals similar to things that had previously been suggested by Milton Friedman or Fredrick Hayek, but I don't think this means, despite what the liberal intelligentsia say, that Trump got the ideas by reading them in either author, whom he has probably never heard of, let alone read.

Berengarius and Ratramnus said some stuff about the Eucharist that sounds a lot like stuff that was later said by Luther, Calvin or Zwingli, but that doesn't mean that any of them were aware of this fact, and it certainly doesn't mean that they got the ideas from Berengarius or Ratramnus, indeed, there is no evidence that any of the early Protestants were even aware of the existence of this controversy.

_________________
Excelsior!


Last edited by Doom on Sun May 27, 2018 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:39 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 209
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
The Protestant reformers had mentors ... who were they and what did they propose, how and when?

Thanks for the tune in Doom, to Berengarius, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Lollards etc... these are certainly the precedents to the eventual Protestant Reformation ...


Quote:
Wycliffe; that the Bible is the supreme authority, that the clergy should hold no property, that there is no basis for the doctrine of transubstantiation Wycliffe came to advocate increasingly radical religious views. He denied the doctrine of transubstantiation and stressed the importance of preaching and the primacy of Scripture as the source of Christian doctrine.

Quote:
Lollards; Yet, their proposed reforms are an interesting mixture of Augustinian and kingdom teachings. They attacked priestly celibacy, holy water, prayers for the dead, pilgrimages to Rome, prayers and offerings to crosses and images, and confession to priests. They called for an end to the practice of the pope or his bishops. They began by stating that the church in England had become subservient to her “stepmother the great church of Rome.” The present priesthood was not the one ordained by Christ, while the Roman ritual of ordination had no warrant in Scripture. Clerical celibacy occasioned unnatural lust, while the “feigned miracle” of transubstantiation led men into idolatry. The hallowing of wine, bread, altars, vestments, and so forth was related to necromancy. Prelates should not be temporal judges and rulers, for no man can serve two masters. The Conclusions also condemned special prayers for the dead, pilgrimages, and offerings to images, and they declared confession to a priest unnecessary for salvation. 


However, this is not what I am looking for ... and this looks like bad news ...
Quote:
Father; We don't have a lot of information about the people against whom (for example) St. Ignatius was writing. They haven't survived and no one preserved their writings (if any).


I think Father is on to what I want. I am looking at Christ speaking to the crowds and telling them passively to eat and drink of Him, then them saying "how can he say this?" and Christ coming back with a stronger statement, the verb explaining not only to eat of him but how, like an animal chews it's cud... and the people leave him thinking the worst. (cannibalism?)

I'm think the way some of he church fathers write that some of those who walked away still wanted to be known as Christians but still refused the lesson of eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood for their eternal salvation.

These, I think, are the original detractors of the power, fullness and origination of the Eucharist, Satan starting early and with a quick salvo, heresy right from the git. I was hoping for some sort of writings from them explaining their position other than the "this is a hard teaching, who can accept it?"

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:54 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 209
Religion: Catholic
again, I quite agree from what I have read ...

Quote:
Doom; that doesn't mean that any of them were aware of this fact, and it certainly doesn't mean that they got the ideas from Berengarius or Ratramnus, indeed, there is no evidence that any of the early Protestants were even aware of the existence of this controversy.


Quote:
After the Lollard movement lost the support of the king and nobility, it began to take on many of the characteristics of the medieval kingdom movements. Their numbers were now almost exclusively made up of tradesmen, peasants, and the urban poor. The Catholic Church could never eradicate them, and so the Lollards were still around when the Reformation reached England.
http://www.earlychurch.com/lollards.php


Quote:
The days of its popularity were long passed and even its martyrdoms attracted but little attention. The little stream of English heresy cannot be said to have added much to the Protestant flood which rolled in from the Continent. It did, however, bear witness to the existence of a spirit of discontent, and may have prepared the ground for religious revolt near London and in the eastern counties, though there is no evidence that any of the more prominent early reformers were Lollards before they were Protestants.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09333a.htm

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 4:43 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 18782
Doom wrote:
GKC wrote:
Ratramnus?


He was a supporter/defender of Berengarius, and therefore would be included with Berengarius in the general history. Darwell Stone's book is very old, although I did get its name wrong earlier, it is 'The History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist', it was published in 1909, but to my knowledge, his thesis has never been refuted, and no one else has ever written a longer or more extensive treatise on the same subject.


At any rate, the Berengarius controversy is inflated, it was not significant, a new theory was offered, it was condemned, and Berengarius retracted it with little lasting effect, as it was forgotten until being rediscovered sometime after the Reformation. It is usually included in histories of doctrine simply for the sake of completeness, not because it was important.

I think that intellectuals and scholars tend to overestimate the importance of intellectuals and scholars. If a philosopher in the year 1600 named Bob Smith said something, and then in the year 1900, another philosopher name Bill Jones says something that sounds kind of similar, scholars conclude that 'Jones was influenced by Smith', but that's not necessarily true, and in most cases, it is false.

When Donald Trump offered his tax cut bill last year, it contained proposals similar to things that had previously been suggested by Milton Friedman or Fredrick Hayek, but I don't think this means, despite what the liberal intelligentsia say, that Trump got the ideas by reading them in either author, whom he has probably never heard of, let alone read.

Berengarius and Ratramnus said some stuff about the Eucharist that sounds a lot like stuff that was later said by Luther, Calvin or Zwingli, but that doesn't mean that any of them were aware of this fact, and it certainly doesn't mean that they got the ideas from Berengarius or Ratramnus, indeed, there is no evidence that any of the early Protestants were even aware of the existence of this controversy.


Might you want to rephrase that opening sentence?

_________________
"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Detractors of the Real Presence
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:50 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 209
Religion: Catholic
So I guess I've decided to attack this another way. I’ve spent some time trying to find the info I want to no conclusion.

The people spoken of, as Father said, really haven’t left any word on why they turned their backs on Christ. I know, the thought of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, especially in the Jewish community was beyond repugnant, but… those same people saw Christ perform the miracle of the loaves and fish so they had to be tuned in to something special was happening with Jesus.

Although it is difficult to chronologically define all the when’s of Christ’s miracles, by most accounts Jesus had already raised a girl form the dead, healed a man’s withered hand, cured lepers and more. These kinds of events should have (in my case would have) sealed the deal on Christ being much more than just a prophet.

So, when he says He is the bread of life and compares and contrasts himself as the son of (therefore) God, I would have believed as I would have thought most others would have too … but the majority didn’t.

Protestants (any/all detractors of the real presence) of today have a double edged sword to face. On the one hand they can decide to not believe what Christ has plainly said and try to verify their beliefs with passages that they then translate in their own terms to adjust bible verses to those personal beliefs. John 6:64-65

(while verses in the NT that obviously were not available as reference for the people who rejected Christ's appeal then) On the other hand that same NT expresses a concern for those disciples who left for not believing ( doesn’t this also concern anyone who decides for any reason not to believe and obey) so, having the reference of the NT as proof of what Christ wants for all his church would leave their decision today not to believe in the same position as those who abandoned Jesus that day, but with devastating written evidence of Christ’s disapproval of their rejection. John 10:22-30. Christ let those disciples walk away then to their possible eternal condemnation John 6: 67 … is this the same today, is God consistent in His ways eternally?

Believe in My words is every bit as important, perhaps more so than any miracle that impresses or fills their bellies. (see many examples below)

Sticking only with the Gospel of John, I reasoned that if He were to say so or try to impress upon them the reality and urgency of this “believe in My Word” it would have come as an early precursor to His Bread of Life Discourse as closely (time wise) to that event for the sake of compacting the message within as close a time frame as possible for the people to better understand with as much inclusivity within multiple conversations to the people.

Here’s what I found,

John 3:
10 Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this? 11* Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 

 31* He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all. 32* He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony; 33 he who receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. 34 For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit; 35 the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. 36* He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

John 4:
26* Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he." … 28 So the woman left her water jar, and went away into the city, and said to the people, 29* "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"

39 Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all that I ever did." 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42* They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.

47 When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. 48* Jesus therefore said to him, "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe." 49 The official said to him, "Sir, come down before my child dies." 50 Jesus said to him, "Go; your son will live." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way. 

John 5
24* Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25* "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 

28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29* and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. 

 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.

45* Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. 47* But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

John 6:
32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven

36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

45* It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 

63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64* But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65* And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

68* Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 


and even after the Bread of Life Discourse, Christ carries on His message …

JN 10:22-30
"How long are you going to keep us in suspense? 
If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 
Jesus answered them, "I told you and you do not believe.
The works I do in my Father's name testify to me.
But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep.
My sheep hear my voice;

John 10:27-30 
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me


john 17:14
6 “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word

john 17: 6
8 for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 17:8
 I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world

john 17:20
17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth


John 17:17
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,

So, this isn’t the proof I wanted right from the horses mouth from the people who walked away, but it is (for me) a very satisfying commentary of the Christ’s desire and repeated attempts to instruct the people to believe in His words as well as His miracles as proof of His claim to be the Son of God.

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


Jump to:  
cron