Is there historical proof that the early Church did not practice the real presence in the Eucharist?

Question

You can earn points by proving from history that the 1st century Church did not practice and teach the real presence (Body,Blood, Soul, and Divinity) of Christ in the Eucharist but instead practiced a symbolic communion instead.

Don't try to fool people with historical nonsense or opinions. Historical facts only please.

AdoreHim,

Actually He said do this in "anamnesis" of me which implies a miracle of transcending time and place where we celebrate the one sacrifice for all humanity. The original Greek does not suggest a recalling of something in the past but a present reality through the miracle of Christ.

I understand your opinion and where your eisegesis comes from but is it your opinion that Jesus lied when he said , "this IS my Body, this IS my blood"? Read John 6 for the plainest teaching in all of Scriptures at the Synagogue in Capernaum. Unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood you have no life in you. St. Paul went on to say in one of his pastoral letters that to receive without discerning His Body brings condemnation on oneself. Would condemnation occur if one did not discern symbolic Body and Blood in the bread and wine?

The above was directed at Fireball

Edge,
First of all the reference to two or more being together in His name refers to a spiritual presence and not a corporeal one as is the case of the Eucharist.

The real presence as explained in the defining proclamation of Transubstantiation was never debated in the Church nor was there any doubt as to what was being worshipped except in regards to the Gnostic heresies. As far as the church asking someone to recant you must understand that denying Jesus was an egregious heresy of the Church and remains to be.

The love feast and the Eucharist are even two separate events held in conjunction in the first century Church. Anyone could go to the lovefeast but only believers could be present for the Eucharist and it could only be consecrated by a bishop. A priest was not allowed to act in persona Christi. The Eucharist DID NOT become controversial until Ulrich Zwingli denied Christ’s presence and forbid His presence from worship during the Reformation.

TG,

Thanks for your opinion but I am asking for historical proof that the early Church did not teach or practice the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I am not asking for a history of what heretics taught later. Do you have ANY proof?

Answer 1

Jesus said 'Do this in anamnesis of Me". Anamnesis means not bare mental recall but 'showing forth' an event by bringing it into the present and by being present to a 'kairos event' upon which one's persona; or group history depends,like the passover and crossing of the Red Sea.Such a living memorial was possible only by the power of God

There are no contextual evidences for a denial of the real presence from Earlt Christian sources.
John 6 and ! Cor 11 are very clear in presenting the real presence of Christ in the eucharist

All the Apostolic, SubApostolic and Patrstic Era Fathers from Ignatius of Antioch(d 110,adisciple of Sts John the Apostle and Polycarp ) to John of Damascus teach the Real Presence.

St Ignatius of antioch taught that only heretics" do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh ofOur Saviour Jesus Christ"(Smyreans6:2)
St Justin Martyr(c150) taught in his" 1stApology"66:20 that the elementshave been'madeinto the Eucharistby the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our flesh and blood is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood ofthe Incarnated Jesus"

St Cyril of jerusalem(Ad 350) inMysticogical Catechetical Lectures4:22:1 delared that if jesus delared the bread to be his Body, who are we to disagree?and "they are the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest the other,let faith make you firm"

The substantial and lteral real presence has been the constant teaching not only of the Catholic Church but odf the Oriental orthodox ChurchesAD451 , the Assyrian Church(431) and theEastern( greek )Orthodox Churches.
Only the Gnostic and Neo ManicheeChurches, which usually denied the real incarnation of Christ, denied the real presence before the Lollards of the 14th cent. Ratramnus of Corbie( 9thcent) and Berengarius of tours(13th cent) were immediately corrected and the latter accepted the teaching of the Church and we do not know if the former did or did not.

At the last Supper Jesus "gave thanks" which is what eucharist means: so eucharisto is in the Bible more than once in reference to the klasis tou Artou,the breaking of the bread and Communion(Koinonia)

Grape juice( non -fermentable) as we know it did not exist until the 19th century invention of the pasturization process. In Jesus time and place wine was fermenting( alcohol-producing) grape wine.

Fruit of the Vine does in no way exclude transubstantiation since the species et accidens( the chemical"elements"or outer sign and vehicle) are not changed but the substance and "ultimate reality" are changed

Denial of the real presence is not the only or original Protestant view for Lutherans and others,even some who deny transubstantiation, teach the real presence in the Eucharist.

The view that rejects the real presence teaching in John 6,1 Cor 11 and the Last Supper Accounts are reading a church oral traditon(Zwinglian,Calvinist,Swenkfeldian,etc) into the text and are definately not going by 'the Bib;e Alone". Catholics and orthodox and other Historicalyy Eucharistic Churches need only take the passages literally but the deniers must do a lot of explaining away of the texts and contexts. I have never meet an argument against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist that cannot be used against the real presence of divine being in Christ also. Often the rejection of the former leads to rejection of the latter.

reception frm the Chalice is very common among roman Catholic laity today and the modes of reception are just liturgical disciplinary practices that should not bring disunion.
Nowhere in Scripture are Dr. Pasteur's Grape Juice or little leavened bread cubes or little separate"thimble glasses", widespread practices among the 'low church" Protestants, recommended by Holy Writ.

Answer 2

Any time 2 or more Christians are gathered together Jesus is there. So the real presence of Jesus is not an issue. What is an issue is the bread and wine actually becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus through transubstantiation. This has been highly debated throughout church history. Transubstantiation did not become the official doctrine until the early 13th century. Until that time it was debated by many such as Berengar. He was silenced by being threatened with death if he did not recant. Communion was originally taken in conjunction with the love feast and it was a simple thing without much ceremony. Done to remember what Jesus did for us. The Lord's supper and this love feast did not begin to be separated until the 2nd century.

As the church began to grow and develop, it became increasingly organized, and with the organization came the rise of ceremony, ritual, and tradition. This impacted every area of church life and practice, including the Lord's Supper. No longer was it a simple memorial meal shared by Christian families in their homes and with fellow believers. Instead, it came to be viewed as a Sacrament, with a host of laws & regulations surrounding it. This "doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist" has taken this simple "feast of the Savior's dying love" and transformed it into the "innocent cause of the most bitter disputes and theological controversies" among God's people (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 -- Nicene & Post-Nicene Christianity, p. 492).

In time, the elements were viewed as being sacred, thus requiring special laws to regulate their use. HIPPOLYTUS (died about 235 A.D.; martyred during the persecution of Emperor Maximius; he was from Rome) taught that believers must show the most intense reverence for the elements of the Eucharist. It should be received early in the day before any other common food was in the stomach; none of it must be dropped or spilt, which would defile it on a dirty floor. It was a common practice at this time for members of the church to take some of the bread home with them to use in a daily, family communion after morning prayers. This was known as Domestic Communion (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 -- Ante-Nicene Christianity, p. 239....... and: Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, p. 266). Hippolytus warned the members of the church that they must never "leave the sacred bread about the house where an unbaptized person, or even a mouse, might accidentally eat it." Later, it would be taught that should a mouse eat a crumb of the bread that had fallen to the floor, it would thereby receive eternal life! Thus, to keep from infesting Heaven, the elements had to be protected!



I really think communion started as a simple remembrance and time and tradition changed it into what it is now in the Catholic church. To me it appears Protestants follow what was originally intended.

Answer 3

Aha. I think one of your answerers finally explained for me why the great, huge fuss is made over infant baptism. It is seen as a "work of man". Well, here's the news: The "work" that occurs at baptism is that of the Holy Spirit -- the source of all grace. Not us. This has ever been the teaching, *historically*, of the Church. Why anyone would want to withhold grace from their children is beyond me, since it is that same grace which -- when the child is able to reason -- allows them to respond in faith, and know Christ as their Lord and Savior. But if they don't believe it confers grace, or accomplishes regeneration from original sin, then baptism is indeed just symbolic. And if that is so, then there should still be no objection to others baptizing their infants -- after all, from that perspective it's just a matter of getting wet. All the same, I'd love to see Scriptural backup for the ordinance of "believer's baptism". And Mark 16:16 is not it; the verse is "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved", not "whoever first believes and is then baptized *is* saved".

Answer 4

1. No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation. Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.

2. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.

3. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.

4. In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?

5. In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.

6. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.

7. The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.

8. Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14)

9. The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus’ own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice.

10. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice.

11. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion".

Answer 5

Read Second Corinthians 11:17-34 for the practice of earliest Christians. Does it say?

Answer 6

That would be completely silly--Jesus made it very clear in John chapter 6 that you must eat and drink of his body and blood. I don't see how Jesus could have been more clear. He said "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" Even protestant translators of the Bible could not avoid the strength of this passage of the reiteration and clarification of it by Jesus.

Answer 7

Whatever was practiced is not as important as what Jesus taught- Did He say that He would become the Eucharist, or at the Last Supper did He say, "do this in remembrance of Me"- just a thought.

Answer 8

to the best of my knowlage the catholic church always believed in transubstantiation and since the catholic church was the first christian church and really the only christian church back then...

Answer 9

Yes....its in the Bible....

Eucharist is not in the Bible...

Answer 10

no there isnt...its symbolic....do in remembrance He said..