Can any Protestants here prove the Early Church did not believe in the Real Presence of The Eucharist?


Can any Protestants here prove the Early Church did not believe in the Real Presence of The Eucharist?



Why would I want to?:confused:

Of course, as a Lutheran, I have no problem with the Early Church recognizing that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.


Define real presence… If your speking sacrificially/transubstantiation or spiritually via faith so to speak Lutheran because it’s clear while you may be able to produce writings from the Fathers that seem to support transubstantiation, this was not ever clarified in the Church until the 4th Lat. Council of 1215.


But the Church always believed in it.


IT being??
Real presence like the lutherans or calvinist
or sacrificial/transubstantiation?
Please define so I can respond accordingly.


I think that there are two essential sources that sum up the teaching of the early church about the Eucharistic Real Presence.

  1. 1st Corinthians 11:23-30

[FONT=“Palatino Linotype”][23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. and then

2. The letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna.


They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Between them they define a belief in the Real Presence as taught by the church to this day. Yes…that means transubstantiation.[/FONT]


Where does it speak of the sacrificial nature?


After all when I was a lcms I believed this as well.


That’s easy…


See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. **It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid. **


where it speaks of sacrifice it does not associate it TO euchrist…Your connecting dots where there are none.
In Him,


I can’t tell…

To the best of your knowledge Simon, and realizing that at the time that was written we had broken with Judaism, can you offer me any other sort of sacrifice that believers offered? :slight_smile:


Off the top of my head anything I add would be speculation, just as your dot connecting is speculation, the fact I won’t speculate on what was meant here does not make your POV even remotely correct, the burden of proof is yours.

Peace friend!


If you say transubstantiation I’ll tell you I can show you it wasn’t the train of thought and certainly no where close to a consensus.


you’re asking the impossible, you can’t prove a negative.


Unfortunately for time constraints:

Look at Clement I where it refers to the sacrifice of the altar, etc…



Why would I want to? :confused:

Of course, as a United Methodist, I have no problem with the Early Church recognizing that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.



As a Methodist are you resacrificing?


Jon I’d love to share some insight here, but please give me a more defined explanation of what you mean by real presence!


The sacrifice of the Mass is NOT re-sacrificing but one and the SAME sacrifice of Calvary.

Do not presume that Christ and therefore God, is contrained by time in the same sense that we are


There is every real evidence that the early Church believed in the Real Presence every bit as much as the modern Church and some.

Catecumenates were required to leave at the end of the liturgy of the Word and were not allowed to participate in the 'Sacred Meal until they were prepared and baptised. We are no longer so rigorous. Anyone can go to a Catholic Church and witness the Sacrifice whether one is a believer or not.

St Paul also tells us that to partake of the meal in a state of unworthiness is to drink damnation to ourselves. So obviously St Paul took it pretty seriously. Why would he if it was merely symbolic?

In fact Paul goes further to instruct that ‘to eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily is to desecrate the Body and Blood of the Lord’ 1Cor 11:27-28, so there can be no doubt in St Paul’s teachings, as he specifically states '‘desecration of the Body and Blood’ not ‘desecration of the symbols’ or ‘desecration of the bread and wine’. No, he states BODY AND BLOOD!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit