The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper - the four principal interpretations and historical continuity

In the second through the fourth centuries, four divergent interpretations concerning the Christian doctrine of God made their appearance—strict Unitarianism (Ebionites, adoptionists), modalism (Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius), Arianism (Arius, Aetius, Eunomius), and Trinitarianism (Athanasius, Hilary, Cappadocians). It took two Ecumenical Councils, copious apologetic writings from a number of bishops, and some imperial support for Trinitarianism to emerge—in the last two decades of the fourth century—as the predominant view. In the seventh century, a new religion founded by Muhammad—Islam—became the only substantial threat to the Trinitarian view until the sixteenth century.

The Protestant reformation/revolt created the environment for the reemergence of Unitarianism, various forms of Arianism, and eventually, even modalism. It also allowed for the first time four distinct, opposing views of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper: Zwinglian (memorial only), Lutheran (consubstantiation), Calvinist (spiritual presence) and Catholic/Council of Trent (transubstantiation).

Now, with that said, one important question that needs to be asked is this: which of the four views has the most continuity with the preceding centuries of Christian thought?

A few years ago (2010), Tim Troutman identified three types/categories of statements found in the writings of the Church Fathers that are quite useful for a detailed analysis of the historical continuity of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. First, ‘Affirmation of Change During the Consecration’; second, 'Simple Identification of Consecrated Species as the Body and Blood’; and third, ‘Demand of Extraordinary Reverence’. [Link to Tim’s informative treatment HERE.]

Tim provides numerous germane quotations from the Church Fathers for each type/category, along with some brief commentary. At the end, there is an appendix that addresses some objections and a short list of additional reading resources.

Tim’s contribution is a must read for folk who have an interest in our topic at hand. Shall end this post with Tim's 'Introduction':

The claim that the Church fathers believed in Transubstantiation is not a claim that any particular father commanded a precise understanding of the doctrine as formulated by Trent. Any given Church father could no sooner express this doctrine precisely in its developed form than could any given ante-Nicene father express the Niceno-Constantinoplitan doctrine of the Trinity. Yet this does not mean either that they did not believe it, or even that it existed in mere “seed form.” The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity can be detected not only in the early Christian writings and in the New Testament, it is an unavoidable development. That is, anything other than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity would be contrary to the Tradition of the Church. Likewise, the affirmations that the fathers made about the Eucharist were not only compatible with Transubstantiation, they were incompatible with anything less.

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper – is it just a sign/symbol?

During the last couple of months, my personal studies have focused on the Eucharist and liturgy. After publishing three posts on the Eucharist, I have been pondering over what my next post should be. Last Wednesday, in the combox of the previous AF thread (link), Ian Miller suggested to me that I, "could look at his [Kauffman’s] claims about the tithe being the sacrifice, or how some Fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian for instance) use the word 'symbol.'"

There is no question that some of the Church Fathers spoke of the Eucharist as a sign/symbol. This fact has led some anti-Catholic apologists to conclude that the CFs who employed such terminology to describe the Eucharist believed the Eucharist was ONLY a sign/symbol; and as such, did not believe in the real, substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This understanding is an all too common misreading of the CFs by anti-Catholic polemicists.

Last year, this issue was competently addressed by Tim Staples (link to bio) in a contribution published by Catholic Answers (link)—from Tim’s “Is the Eucharist a Symbol, or Is It Real?” we read:

In the introduction to his classic Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon describes well the perennial challenge of the Catholic Church to strike a balance between the manifold and false “either/or” propositions that constitute the great heresies and errors of Church history and what Fr. Hardon called the truth of “the eternal and.” For example, the pantheist says the universe consists of God alone. The material is mere illusion. The materialist says it is all and only matter. The truth is, it’s both. The Protestant says we are saved by “faith alone”; the various Pelagian sects say it is by “works alone.” The truth is, it’s both. The Monophysite says Jesus is God alone; the Arian (or the Jehovah’s Witness today) says he is man alone. The truth is, he’s both. The list could go on and on.

So it is with the Eucharist. For many, there are only two options. Either it is a symbol or it is Jesus. I know this was my thinking when I was Protestant. “When Jesus says, ‘This is my body,’ or ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man,’ it is obvious he is speaking symbolically,” I would say. “Bread and wine were to nature what Jesus Christ is to our super-nature. Bread and wine are obviously excellent symbols of Jesus Christ.” In my mind as a Protestant, if I could show communion to be symbolic, I had proved my point. The idea of “both/and” was never even a consideration.

In the rest of his treatment, Tim goes on to prove that the correct reading of the Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist is NOT an ‘either or proposition’, but a ‘both/and' one; the Eucharist is a sign/symbol and truly is what it symbolizes—i.e. the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

In an older online posting (link), Joe Heschmeyer focuses on Tertullian’s reflections concerning the Eucharist. Before delving into Tertullian’s affirmations of the real presence, Joe writes:

When Protestants talk about Sacraments being symbolic, they typically mean that they’re only symbols. And of course, as Catholics, we think that’s false. But we don’t deny that the Sacraments are symbols.

Joe proceeds to point out that all the sacraments are "efficacious signs of grace", and then writes:

So we can readily affirm that the Eucharist is both a symbol and the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus could have consecrated something else: say, a melon. But He didn’t. He chose bread and wine...

In section "II. Tertullian on the Real Presence", Joe provides selections from Tertullian's corpus that demonstrate he clearly believed in the Real Presence. He summarizes those quotes with the following:

1. Marcion denied that Christ had a true Body of Flesh and Blood. If that were true, then we would have to believe that the Eucharist was just bread, and that Christ on the Cross was just bread.

2. He says that Christ explained exactly what He meant by “Bread” when He described it as His Body. According to Tertullian, the question now is why Christ referred to His Body as “Bread,” rather than something else (like a melon). He answers this by saying that Christ’s Body is referred to throughout Scripture as Bread.

3. He quotes a passage from the Septuagint version of Jeremiah to show that Christ’s Crucified Body is rightly called “Bread.”

4. The Eucharistic Bread and Wine affirm the reality of Christ’s Flesh, since He couldn’t give us His Body or Blood if He didn’t have actual Flesh. Christ’s Flesh, in turn, proves that He had a true Body.

5. Christ consecrates the wine, fulfilling the Old Testament typology.

Tertullian’s understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the official teaching of the RCC; the Eucharist truly is what it symbolizes—i.e. the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Shall conclude this post with links to Joe Heschmeyer’s three compilations of quotes from the CFs on the Eucharist:

Very Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist - LINK

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 200 – c. 300 A.D.) - LINK

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 300 – 400 A.D.) – LINK

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper and the development of doctrine

...there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth [century]. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 151 – bold emphasis mine)

The dictum that, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated", is masterfully applied by Newman to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Earlier in the book, he wrote:

...the statements of a particular father or doctor may certainly be of a most important character ; but one divine is not equal to a Catena. We must have a whole doctrine stated by a whole Church. The Catholic Truth in question is made up of a number of separate propositions, each of which, if maintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy. (Ibid., p. 14)

He then added that it is, “not enough to prove that one has held that the Son is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the Macedonian), and another that the Father is not the Son, (for so did the Arian), and another that the Son is equal to the Father, (for so did the Tritheist), and another that there is but One God, (for so did the Unitarian),” (Ibid. p.15). [I would add to Newman's list that is not enough to prove the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 'one God’, for so did the Modalists.]

The developed doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by two Ecumenical Creeds and numerous Church Fathers in the fourth century, was being ‘violated’ in many varying degrees and forms since apostolic times. It is notable the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, “there must be also heresies (αἱρέσεις) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”—1 Cor. 11:19.

Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity—which was openly attacked and violated since apostolic times—the doctrine of the Eucharist had no serious opponents and violations until the ninth century. It is worth reflecting once again on the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The fact that, “greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species”, was reached after the controversies/violations of the ninth and eleventh centuries, should not lead one to surmise that no development concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist took place in the preceding centuries. History clearly reveals that minor developments began after the passing of the apostles. However, what one will not find are direct, explicit denials of nonnegotiable affirmations found in the fully developed doctrine of the Eucharist—e.g. the Real Presence, substantial conversion of the bread and wine, and the sacrificial aspect.

Unlike the doctrines of God and Christology, one will not find extensive treatments on the Eucharist before the ninth century. Irenaeus and Epiphanius briefly mention a few bizarre eucharistic rites performed by some of the Gnostic sects, but none of those aberrations found any acceptance in the Catholic churches (i.e. churches that could trace their origins via apostolic succession). History forces one to conclude that exhaustive works on the Eucharist were not needed in the centuries that preceded the Eucharistic controversies of the ninth and eleventh centuries. This fact must be kept in mind when one examines the relatively few mentions of the Eucharist as found in the writings of the Church Fathers.

I began this post with Newman's thoughts on the development of doctrine, with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity functioning as the primary model for his thesis. I shall end with some of his assessments on the Eucharist; from his esteemed pen we read:

One additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others: —I betake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist ; I have no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament contains ; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on which it is assured to me. "The Presence of Christ is here, for It follows upon Consecration ; and Consecration is the prerogative of Priests ; and Priests are made by Ordination ; and Ordination comes in direct line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every link in our chain is safe ; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a right form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great Gift." Here the question rises in me, "Who told you about that Gift?" I answer, "I have learned it from the Fathers : I believe the Real Presence because they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it 'the medicine of immortality :' St. Irenaeus says that ' our flesh becomes incorrupt, and partakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,' as 'being nourished from the Lord's Body and Blood ;' that the Eucharist ' is made up of two things, an earthly and an heavenly :' perhaps Origen and perhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord's Body, but His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken, of those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 23 – bold emphasis mine)

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper – polemical musings by Timothy F. Kauffman

As mentioned in my previous post (link), the postings of two anti-Catholic controversialists concerning the Eucharist were brought to my attention. I shared some thoughts on Brian Culliton, and shall now concentrate on Timothy F. Kauffman.

Tim is an anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist whom I have interacted with in the past here at AF concerning the topic of baptismal regeneration in the early Church Fathers (the germane 4 posts are found under this label). Back on June 27, 2020 (link) Tim began a number of posts under the subject heading of 'EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE'. The June 27, 2020 post was titled: THE APOSTOLIC “AMEN”. From that post we read:

The disagreement over celebrating the Resurrection is easily resolved, as there is no prescriptive mandate from the Scripture on whether the Resurrection should even be celebrated. There is no Scriptural imperative to commemorate it in the first place, much less to do so on a certain date...Regarding the consecration, the Scriptures give no explicit direction. The Gospel writers make no mention of a formal consecration, and Paul simply refers to the cup “which we bless” and the bread “which we break” (1 Corinthians 10:16).

But when it comes to the matter of the sacrifice, the Apostle Paul has left to us an elegant means by which we may not only establish a unified, biblical, apostolic liturgy but also utterly dispose of the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. Once Paul’s Eucharistic liturgy is understood from the Scriptures, we find from the historical evidence that the early Church readily embraced and practiced it for three centuries, until a new liturgy emerged in the late 4th century, paving the way for the abominations and idolatries of Roman Catholicism. The elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) immediately following the Eucharist, or “giving of thanks.” Roman Catholicism places the Eucharist after the Consecration so that Christ’s body and blood is alleged to be offered to God, but the Scriptures place the Eucharist before the Consecration, making the liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood impossible. And Paul’s “Amen” prevents any and all attempts to combine them.

Tim’s foundational premise concerning the Eucharist was explicitly presented in the following statement:

The elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) immediately following the Eucharist, or “giving of thanks.”

A bit later in the post we read:

Paul describes the liturgical “Amen” as a common expression of the gathered participants immediately following the Eucharist:

“…when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks (εὐχαριστίᾳ, eucharistia), seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Corinthians 14:16)

When I first read the above from Tim's pen I was literally dismayed; I had never heard of, or read, such an interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:16. I instinctively knew it was time to consult the commentaries I have in my library on Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians; note the following:

It is obvious that εὐχαριστία here cannot mean the Eucharist. The minister at that service would not speak in a Tongue. Nor is it probable that in ‘the Amen’ there is indirect reference to the Eucharist. The use of the responsive Amen at the end of the prayers, and especially of the reader’s doxology, had long been common in the synagogues (Neh. v. 13, viii. 6; 1 Chron. xvi. 36; Ps. cvi. 48), and had thence passed into the Christian Church, where it at once became a prominent feature (Justin M. Apol. i. 65; Tertul. De Spectac. 25 ; Cornelius Bishop of Rome in Eus. H.E. vi. xliii. 19; Chrys. ad loc.), especially at the end of the consecration prayer in the Eucharist. So common did it become at the end of every prayer in Christian worship that the Jews, it is said, began to abandon it; Jerome says that it was like thunder...It is evident from this passage that a great deal of the service was extempore, and both the Didache and Justin show that this continued for some time. Apparently the prophets had more freedom in this respect than others. (Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1911, p. 313)

To bless and to give thanks are related in thought to pray and to sing (vs. 15); the former also refer to the adoration and the thanksgiving which are implied in the speaking of tongues. The words "to bless" and "to thank" are not used in the same sense as in 10:15. Paul does not speak about Holy Communion in our verse; (F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1953, p. 326)

At thy giving of thanks (epi tēi sēi eucharistiāī). Just the prayer, not the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper, as is plain from verse 17. (Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume IV - The Epistles of Paul, 1931, p. 183)

The setting of 1 Cor. 14:16 is one of spontaneity. The early worship services—when the brethren come together— were “extempore,” with demonstrations of a number of varying spiritual gifts by the brethren. Paul is emphasizing that in order for one to give a proper “Amen” to a psalm (ψαλμὸν), doctrine (διδαχὴν), revelation (ἀποκάλυψιν), a tongue (γλῶσσαν), an interpretation (ἑρμηνείαν), one must be able to understand them. Paul is arguing that uninterpreted tongues have no place in congregational settings. Note the following:

Praying or singing in tongues could serve no purpose, and Paul would not do it. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? Ungifted (idiōtēs) is, I believe, better translated in its usual sense of ignorant, unlearned, or unskilled. A person who is ignorant of a language being spoken cannot possibly understand what he hears. In a worship service, for example, he could not know when to say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks. Prayers of songs of thanks could not include anyone else if they were given in unintelligible sounds.

Amen is a Hebrew word of agreement and encouragement, meaning "So let it be," and was commonly used by worshippers in the synagogue. The practice carried over into some early Christian churches and, in fact, is common in many churches today. A person cannot know when to "Amen," however, if he does not know what is being said. (John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary - 1 Corinthians, 1984, p. 377)

It sure seems to me (and the commentators listed above), that the “elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic ‘Amen’ (1 Corinthians 14:16)”, does not exist. The setting of 1 Cor. 14:16 is clearly not what Tim thinks it is. Borrowing a term from Tim’s playbook, his interpretation is "abominable".

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper - Introduction

I am currently engaged in an extensive study of the Eucharist and liturgy. I began this study a month ago after a number of comments were posted in two older threads here at AF. [See comments by posted by Noah here; and comments by Ian Miller here]

In their posts, Noah and Ian brought to my attention the polemical efforts by two anti-Catholic gents whose goal is to disprove the material/substantial real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist—i.e. that the Eucharistic bread and wine are in no real sense converted into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Such polemical efforts are not new. The first known attempt to challenge the centuries old interpretation that the Eucharist is materially and substantially the body and blood of Jesus Christ was put forth by the Frankish monk Ratramnus in the ninth century. The controversy raised by Ratramnus was localized and short lived, but reemerged two centuries later via the French theologian Berengar (Latin: Berengarius).

Interestingly enough, prior to Ratramnus and Berenger, teachings by the Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist precipitated no controversy. Note the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The controversial efforts of Berengar and his followers were effectively negated by two contemporary Catholic theologians—Lanfranc of Canterbury and Guitmund of Aversa. Controversy over the Eucharist became virtually nonexistent until the 16th century. The Protestant reformation/revolt created discord over a wide range of doctrines, with the Eucharist being no exception. Disputations over the Eucharist emerged quite early. Calvin, Luther and Zwingli each held opposing views, views which created even further fragmentation amongst Protestants as time went on.

The numerous doctrines/variants concerning the Eucharist can be broadly classified under two competing concepts. First, those who maintain that Jesus Christ is materially/substantially present in Eucharistic elements—the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in a real sense—a concept known as the Real Presence. The other concept denies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, interpreting the Biblical statements that the Eucharistic bread "is my body", and the cup/wine "is my blood", in a figurative sense only.

The doctrine of the Real Presence can be divided into two categories: those who believe that the Real Presence is 'spiritual' only—i.e. only the divinity of Jesus Christ is present, and those who maintain that the Real Presence includes both the 'spiritual' and material/substantial presence of Jesus Christ—i.e. both of Christ’s two natures are present.

With the above, brief introduction in place, I would now like to move forward to our two 21st century controversialists: Brian Culliton and Timothy F. Kauffman.

Brian Culliton (initially posting under the pseudonym 'onefold') began a series concerning a few early Church Fathers and the "real presence doctrine" back on January 26, 2008. He started with Clement of Alexandria and Origen (link). In February 2008 he added Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius (link). In the late spring of 2008 he combined his January and February posts, adding a "Conclusion" that displays the anti-Catholic, polemical nature of his contributions (link).

Since June of 2008, Brian has made numerous, though minor, modifications to the 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post (see this link). Interest in the thread has continued up to February 28, 2024, with the last comment bringing the total to 21,680—an impressive total!

One of the major problems I have with 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post is that it ignores the extremely important issue of doctrinal development. It is a historical fact that doctrine/s develop. If Brian were to examine the doctrines of God and Christology as found in the Church Fathers he references in his 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post, comparing them with the developed doctrines of God and Christology as found in the creeds and confessions of the major historical churches, he would have to conclude that all of those Church Fathers were heretical! But, if one allows for the organic develop of doctrine, one will discover that those Church Fathers provided the 'seeds' for positive growth in what became the orthodox doctrines of God and Christology as found in the Ecumenical Creeds. The same holds true concerning the doctrines of the Eucharist and Real Presence. In later posts I will provide solid evidence that the early Church Fathers provided the core elements for the formulation of the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Another problem that I have with the 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post is that it seems to limit its criticisms of the Real Presence doctrine to just the Catholic tradition. Fact is, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Lutherans, and many Anglicans also embrace the doctrine. Interestingly enough, one Anglican apologist has provided some solid critiques of Brian's musings. I highly recommend that interested folk take the time to investigate the following posts:

Early Church Refutes real presence? An introduction

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/early-church-refutes-real-presence-an-introduction/

Early Church evidence refutes real presence?-A reply to Brian Cullition Part 1: Ignatius of Antioch

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-a-reply-to-brian-cullition-part-1-ignatius-of-antioch/

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence?-Origen’s Exegesis and the Eucharist

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-origens-exegesis-and-the-eucharist/

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence: Dialogue with Culliton

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-dialogue-with-culliton/

Shall end here for now. In my next post, the Lord willing, I will begin my examination of our second 21st century controversialist, Timothy F. Kauffman.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Calvin: on the visible Church and apostasy – part 1

Recently, a new site (Called to Communion – Reformation meets Rome), featuring contributors who are converts to the Catholic Church, made its Internet debut. The site has a “Library”, podcasts and a blog; it was via this last feature that I ‘discovered’ the site—more specifically, via the thread: Does Calvin teach that the Church ceased to exist on account of the Eucharist?.

Though I am certainly not a Calvin scholar, I have read the majority of his works (including the Institutes—twice), and numerous books on his life and theology. In the opening post, Taylor Marshall, posted the following:

In Institutes IV, 18, 7 Calvin writes:

I come now to the crowning point, viz., that the sacred Supper, on which the Lord left the memorial of his passion formed and engraved, was taken away, hidden and destroyed when the mass was erected.

Now, something just did not seem ‘right’ with the quote, so I checked the two English editions (Allen and Battles) I have in my library, and immediately confirmed my suspicions. I then tracked down the translation that Taylor had used (Beveridge) and a Latin edition (Tholuck). The following is the ‘fruit’ of my labor:

I come now to the crowning point, viz., that the sacred Supper, on which the Lord left the memorial of his passion formed and engraved, was taken away, hidden and destroyed when the mass was erected. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.18.7, trans. Henry Beveridge, Edinburgh 1845 ed., p. 3.465)

Now I come to the end: namely, that the Sacred Supper (in which the Lord had left graven and inscribed the remembrance of his Passion) has been taken away, destroyed, and abolished by the raising up of the Mass. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.18.7, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Westminster Press ed., p. 1435.)

I come now to the concluding observation; that the sacred supper, in which our Lord had left us the memorial of his passion impressed and engraven, has, by the erection of the mass, been removed, abolished, and destroyed. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.18.7, trans. John Allen, 7th American ed., 2.719.)

…is by the fetting [setting] up the Maffe [Mass], taken away, defaced, and deftroyed [destroyed]. (John Calvin, Institution of the Christian Religion, 4.18.7, trans. Thomas Norton, 1634 ed., p. 707.)

Ad coronidem nunc nunc venio, nempe sacram Coenam, in qua Dominus passionis suae memoriam insculptam formatamque reliquerat, erecta Missa e medio sublatum, inductam et deperditam…(Ioannis Calvini, INSTITUTIO CHRISTIANAE RELIGIONIS, 1834 ed., p. 446.)


So, as the careful reader can readily discern, Beveridge has added the word “hidden” in his translation of the passage. In my next thread (Lord willing), I am going to explore some possible reasons as to why he may have done so.


Grace and peace,

David