John Calvin on the denial of Christ's Real Presence in the Lord's Supper.

PatricaMcKay

"We begin now to enter on the question so much debated, both anciently and at the present time—how we are to understand the words in which the bread is called the body of Christ, and the wine his blood. This may be disposed of without much difficulty, if we carefully observe the principle which I lately laid down, viz., that all the benefit which we should seek in the Supper is annihilated if Jesus Christ be not there given to us as the substance and foundation of all. That being fixed, we will confess, without doubt, that to deny that a true communication of Jesus Christ is presented to us in the Supper, is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless—an execrable blasphemy unfit to be listened to."

From a "Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper" by John Calvin, section 12.

What struck me about this is the vast amount of both Reformed and Romans in Ireland who believe that the Sacrament is purely symbolic now, and how Calvin would have opposed them as much as he opposed ideas of the mass as a sacrifice.

philologos

Calvin != represent all Reformed people. Other Reformers put forward different views on the Eucharist.

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

Calvin != represent all Reformed people. Other Reformers put forward different views on the Eucharist.

Where did I say he represented all Reformers?

The Lutheran/Evangelical Catholic hold that Christ is physically present beneath the bread and wine. The Anglican traditions held though to Calvin's views in general, though some held to Lutheran position.

Its debatable how much the Anabaptists can be considered part of the Reformation.

Morbert

While I don't have a strong opinion either way, I thought it could be interpreted as a symbolic recognition of Christ's sacrifice.

PatricaMcKay

Morbert wrote: »

While I don't have a strong opinion either way, I thought it could be interpreted as a symbolic recognition of Christ's sacrifice.

Its become that way in the Church of Ireland but its wasnt before.

I think its an important topic.

philologos

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

The Anglican traditions held though to Calvin's views in general, though some held to Lutheran position.

You're wrong about Anglicanism. Thomas Cranmer when he wrote the 39 Articles of Religion wrote the following about transubstantiation.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

PDN

Quote mining is a dangerous business. As Morbert has pointed out, Calvin's quote in the OP does not support transubstantiation, but rather asserts that Christ is, in a spiritual sense, present at the Lord's Supper and so believers receive Him by faith.

Calvin mocked both RC transubstantiation and Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation as being cannibalism, saying "Every time Luther mentions the Lord's Supper he has in mind something that a butcher handles".

Btw, I am neither a Roman Catholic nor a Calvinist, so I have no axe to grind in this at all. Just trying to be historically accurate!

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

You're wrong about Anglicanism. Thomas Cranmer when he wrote the 39 Articles of Religion wrote the following about transubstantiation.

Transtantiation is one way of understanding the Real Presence. Its a human rationalization of the mode of Christ's Presence in Communion. To say that because the 39 articles deny transubstantiation does not mean that Anglicanism denies the Real Presence.

Something Roman Catholics in Ireland seem to have a difficulty in understanding due to the fact that a lot of the time their ignorance about Protestantism is only matched by their arrogance towards it.

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

Calvin mocked both RC transubstantiation and Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation as being cannibalism, saying "Every time Luther mentions the Lord's Supper he has in mind something that a butcher handles".

Calvin was often strong in his words but he didnt see Luther's understanding of the nature of Communion as being a block to Church unity, which shows that his attitude toward it was to say his attitude to the mass as a sacrifice. Calvin was closer to the Lutherans than he was to the Anabaptists.

philologos

PatriciaMcKay - Cranmer clearly put forward the Eucharist as a symbolic reminder of Christ's sacrifice for mankind on the cross. Some Anglicans do still hold to Transubstantiation (mainly Anglo-Catholics) but this was introduced with the Oxford Movement in the 19th century with John Henry Newman etc. Some hold to Consubstantiation along the lines of Luther, but it is clear that at an original level the Eucharist was purely symbolic.

The Articles of Religion go on to describe the Mass as "a blasphemous fable". They are quite a vitriolic document because the time itself was vitriolic.

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

The Articles of Religion go on to describe the Mass as "a blasphemous fable". They are quite a vitriolic document because the time itself was vitriolic.

The idea that Christ is continually re-sacrificed is clearly a blasphemous fable, something which many RCs do hold, that has nothing to do with the topic of the Real Presence though. Also that Cranmer held a Zwinglian/Anabaptist view of the Lord's Supper (considering that he clearly saw them as heretics) is something I have only come across in RC propaganda.

philologos

PatriciaMcKay - In Anglicanism a sacrament is an outward physical sign of an inward spiritual motion. This is made clear in the Book of Common Prayer.

The bread and the wine are simply an outward physical sign of the spiritual redemption of mankind by Jesus' death and resurrection on the cross.

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

Quote mining is a dangerous business. As Morbert has pointed out, Calvin's quote in the OP does not support transubstantiation, but rather asserts that Christ is, in a spiritual sense, present at the Lord's Supper and so believers receive Him by faith.

Why do people keep bringing up transubstantion?

The fact of Christ being present in the Lord's Supper in an incomparably different, though spiritual, mode to His sustaining presence in the cosmos at large is one denied by the present day children of the Anabaptists. I was merely pointing out that their teaching is contrary to that of the actual Reformation (as well as being contrary to the words of Scripture).

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

PatriciaMcKay - In Anglicanism a sacrament is an outward physical sign of an inward spiritual motion. This is made clear in the Book of Common Prayer.

They are a means of Grace which is not quite the same thing.

philologos

Nobody is saying that Christ isn't present at the Eucharist. What Cranmer argues is that Christ isn't physically in the bread and wine.

Patricia: Can I ask where you are getting this from the Book of Common Prayer?

PatricaMcKay

The Book of Common Prayer and the 39 articles do seem to go along with Calvin's position never the less some Anglican Divines held to the Lutheran position.

georgieporgy

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

What struck me about this is the vast amount of both Reformed and Romans in Ireland who believe that the Sacrament is purely symbolic now, and how Calvin would have opposed them as much as he opposed ideas of the mass as a sacrifice.

without getting into doctrinal arguments between the various christian groups, I would like to point out that the RC belief is that the consecrated Eucharist is Christ, ie, the man in the flesh just as he was after the resurrection when, for example, he walked with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They didn't recognise him at first even though they walked and talked with him for a long time. It was only when he gave them the eucharist (and physically vanished) that they realised who they had been entertaining.
A question arises here. If the 2 disciples still failed to recognise Jesus even then, would that have meant it wasn't Jesus?

antiskeptic

georgieporgy wrote: »

without getting into doctrinal arguments between the various christian groups, I would like to point out that the RC belief is that the consecrated Eucharist is Christ, ie, the man in the flesh just as he was after the resurrection when, for example, he walked with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They didn't recognise him at first even though they walked and talked with him for a long time.

The text says they were kept from recognising him.

It was only when he gave them the eucharist (and physically vanished) that they realised who they had been entertaining.

They were clearly unkept from recognising him at this point.

A question arises here. If the 2 disciples still failed to recognise Jesus even then, would that have meant it wasn't Jesus?

All we can say from the text is that they were somehow unkept from recognising him after the breaking of bread. The only way for them not to recognise him 'even then' is if they were still kept in the 'kept from recognising him' state. If they were kept from recognising him even then, Jesus would still be the same Jesus. Just as he was at the other times they were kept from recognising him.

Are you assuming cause between the broken bread and their recognising Jesus? As opposed to correlation? The question doesn't make sense otherwise.

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

without getting into doctrinal arguments between the various christian groups, I would like to point out that the RC belief is that the consecrated Eucharist is Christ, ie, the man in the flesh just as he was after the resurrection when, for example, he walked with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. They didn't recognise him at first even though they walked and talked with him for a long time. It was only when he gave them the eucharist (and physically vanished) that they realised who they had been entertaining.
A question arises here. If the 2 disciples still failed to recognise Jesus even then, would that have meant it wasn't Jesus?

So He gave them the Eucharist, which was Himself?

georgieporgy

PDN wrote: »

So He gave them the Eucharist, which was Himself?

My post was to clarify RC belief on the matter which I felt was misrepresented by another poster. I realise that other christian denominations have different views (which I suppose explains why there are different denominations). I had no intention of proving the point or attempting to reunite all christians.

I'm just a dentist:D

anyway, here is the road to emmaus story:

When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?" And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.