# Talk:Lord's Supper in Reformed theology

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lord's Supper in Reformed theology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 13:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I am happy to field this particular review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


### Lede
Be careful with some of the wording. For instance, a statement like "In Reformed theology, the Lord's Supper is a sacrament that spiritually nourishes Christians and strengthens their union with Christ" reads in quite a literalist manner. It would good to tweak it a little to something like "In Reformed theology, the Lord's Supper is believed to be a sacrament that spiritually nourishes Christians and strengthens their union with Christ." That way we can present the information without implying that it is objective truth. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the lede quite conforms to WP:Lede, and at present that is my biggest concern about this article. The lede needs to aptly summarise the entirety of the article's contents, and at present I don't think it does that. I'd recommend expanding it with another paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


### Background
"through the tenth century" - "through to the tenth century" might read better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would be equivalent or correct. I think "through the x century" is fairly standard.--JFH (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
When first mentioning the Eucharist, I'd add a link. It's a fairly widely understood term among Christians but probably not among non-Christians, who (presumably) make up the majority of Wikipedia's global readership. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Similarly, link "heaven" to Heaven in Christianity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
" Influential fourth-century Western theologian" - this could be slightly improved as "The influential fourth...". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"He believed the..." to "Augustine believed..." lest someone get confused and think we are talking about Christ rather than Augustine. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"the Euharist" - spelling error. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"in the East", "in the West". Let's be more specific than this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


### Reformation
Maybe link to Protestant Reformation when mentioning it? And the same with Lutherans. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps give a few words to explain who Martin Luther was? The same with John Calvin. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
" the Lord's Supper" - is this a synonym for the Eucharist? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


### Modern
"Nineteenth-century Reformed congregationalists followers of the New England theology generally" - this wording does not quite work. Maybe some additional punctuation and a few extra words would help? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


### Meaning
"Reformed confessions" - we are going to need a link or an explanation here. Is this the relevant link: Confession (Lutheran Church). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"be united to Christ" - should this be "united with Christ"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"This is to involve determining" - again, this wording does not quite work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


### Other
The images seem to have no copyright problems, and are appropriately used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The use of referencing is really good. Lots of great academic sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Midnightblueowl. I believe I've addressed your comments. Please let me know if there's anything else. --JFH (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jfhutson. I'll have another read through. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the articles use "Lord's Supper" and sometimes "Lord's supper". This needs to be standardised (presumably to the former). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
In the lede it states that this is also known as the "mystical real presence or spiritual real presence" but this information does no then appear in a referenced form in the article body. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, all done with these. --JFH (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JFH. I'd recommend taking it to peer review to let some others read through the article although I think that this meets all the GA criteria so will happily pass this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So I have tried explaining that using a single, obscure reformed theologian as a source is slightly problematic. Reformed theologians can, of course, like everyone else, publish and reflect mainstream scholarly views, but there is no evidence that that is the case here. I first tried rewriting the passage by copy-pasting other Wikipedia material, but was reprimanded by @Jfhutson: for citing too many primary sources. I then decided to add qualifiers to more controversial statements that were presented as fact, instead of being presented as something argued by a Reformed theologian. I added below secondary sources that contradict Riggs assertions that there was some kind of a controversy between Augustine and others about the Real Presence. This time, all of my edits were reverted by @Ltwin:. I fear that trying harder will only result in more exercise in futility, so here I am at the talk page. 
1) John Riggs is an obscure Reformed theologian. I have NO PROBLEM having his research here, but presenting it as a matter of fact is problematic
2) The idea that Augustine did not believe in the Real Presence sounds like propaganda. There are clear statements from him explicitly stating that the Bread turns into a literal body of Christ, and there are secondary sources supporting this, as I cited already 

So I want people to come to agreement any of the following:
1) Remove Riggs' controversial statements 
2) Keep Rigg's controversial statements, but make it clear that this is according to HIS research, and this is NOT the mainstream consensus 

Or do a combination of either. 
I will wait for someone to weigh in. 
Thanks --65.94.98.111 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you misread. The article clearly states that Augustine believed in Christ's real presence, and that the Reformed follow this view, just not in the manner of transubstantiation. In the Christ's presence section:
The Reformed confessions teach that Christ's true body and blood are really present in the Lord's Supper. Regarding what is received in the Supper, the Reformed tradition does not disagree with the position of Catholicism or Lutheranism. Reformed confessions teach that partakers of the Supper, in the words of the Belgic Confession, partake of "the proper and natural body and the proper blood of Christ". However, they deny the explanations for this eating and drinking made by Lutherans and Catholics. Against Catholics, Reformed confessions teach that the bread and wine of the Supper do not become the blood and body of Christ, as in the Catholic view of transubstantiation. Against Lutherans, Reformed confessions do not teach that partakers of the Supper physically eat Christ's body and drink his blood with their mouths (Latin: manducatio oralis). While Reformed confessions teach that in the Supper Christ is received in both his divine and human natures, the manner of eating is believed to be spiritual (manducatio spiritualis). The body and blood of Christ remain fleshly substance, but they are communicated to the partaker in a spiritual manner.
I don't know of a reliable source to add that would claim Augustine believed in something like transubstantiation, but if there is scholarly debate on the topic we could add that. --Jfhutson (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jfhutson: Transubstantiation is a later explanation of how real presence occurs. Transubstantiation doctrine was not developed during Augustine. Transubstantiation, strictly speaking is NOT believed by Eastern Orthodox or Orientals. But they do believe that Christ's body is present in the bread. The article argues that Augustine denied the view that Christ's body was present in the bread physically, which, contradicts Augustine's statements and mainstream consensus. Additionally, an obscure reformed theologian should NOT be presented as matter of fact on the topic. 65.94.98.111 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, I guess we just need reliable sources for that claim about Augustine, that he believed in a physical presence. I would submit that the quotes from Augustine can all be read either figuratively or affirming some kind of non-physical presence, but regardless we have to have secondary source interpretation. I’ll admit Riggs is not well known, but I thought his book did a good job of dealing with the issues in a scholarly way while being very clear about what the issues were. It’s probably preferable to have an Augustine scholar but the advantage of Riggs is he focused on what would become an issue in the reformation debates. It looks like I do have an article by two Catholic Augustine scholars from the Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology. —Jfhutson (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jfhutson: I would have no problem citing Riggs about something undisputed. I think it is unfair to present him as a matter of fact on something so controversial. I gave two scholarly sources before that challenge this idea that Riggs argues for, and you should DEFINITELY add your sources from the handbook. Just rewrite it in a neutral manner. 65.94.98.111 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jfhutson: Have you had the chance to tend to editing the wording/sources? Thanks 65.94.98.111 (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the idea that the account given in the article right now is controversial needs to be proven. Regarding your addition with two sources here, I think the objection was that it does not explain what the Augustinian controversy was and why it is relevant. I also looked over the Otten source and could not figure out where it supported the statement that there is a dispute among scholars. You might want to cite a specific page. The other statement, that Augustine sometimes used "literal language" doesn't seem relevant. One must be much more specific about what such "literal language" means, since those taking what the article calls a "nonmetabolic" view believe that Christ is literally really present. The issue is whether his body and blood are literally locally or corporally "here" or whether they are (literally) communicated to believers by the spirit.
Regarding the Oxford Handbook, I am saying it is already in the article, footnote 5, after the statement "Augustine believed the Eucharist is a spiritual eating which allows Christians to become part of Christ's body." --Jfhutson (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jfhutson: Let's start from the fact that it presents a POV from an unknown Reformed Theologian as matter of fact? And you agreed with this. I can literally only find one (maybe two) other reference to "metabolic" vs "non-metabolic" on the Eucharist, and it seems to be from a similar unknown author. It seems like the distinction is introduced by an unknown Reformed Theologian/s simply to argue that there existed such a division, when all mainstream Churches that existed prior to the 16th century have affirmed and still affirm the Real Presence, without any distinction that seems literally made up. And I am fine with you citing him, but NOT as matter of fact. I also do not like you removing scholarly sources I cite.
FINALLY, there are MANY scholarly articles that I could cite and do cite which make it clear the Augustine believed in REAL, Dynamic presence. 

Here is just one from a Jesuit scholar, who states that Augustine believed in Real DYNAMIC presence  
Here is another
Here is number 3
Here is number 4
Number 5
Number 6, which explains the figurative language of Augustine, but makes it clear that he believed in ACTUAL, REAL, BODILY presence, from an Anglican scholar, mind you
Number 7
I can keep going ALL NIGHT. Please, stop the obscurantism, and let us rewrite the article in a way that is neutrally worded. 
Thanks 65.94.98.4 (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I must add @Jfhutson: that I am not a fan of the obfuscation. The issue is not about participation, but whether Augustine held to the view that Christ was bodily present in the Eucharist. That's the issue. That is what is being denied by this article, based on one unknown Reformed theologian, and contrary to many other theologians 65.94.98.4 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion on Augustine here gives attention to some obscure Reformed theologian. His belief that Augustine held to spiritual presence is contradicted in mainstream... For example, in John Norman Davidson Kelly' work, "Early Christian Doctrine" pp 446-448 65.94.98.115 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

However, since this article is about the Reformed view, it is important note how they engage with the work of the church fathers. I think this should be put back in until more knowledgeable people can comment on this. Ltwin (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I would also note the section you removed was not just from Riggs but there were other sources cited as well, such as the Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology. Ltwin (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
We need to see if what is written in the article corresponds to the references in the book. Almost all of the "Background" in the article is according to Riggs... As if he were the only one. Unfortunately I do not have the book to check if the information in the article is correct. In the week I will buy the book to verify the information. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ltwin: @Rafaelosornio: Here I shall provide top scholar references to Augustine and the Eucharist.
1 JND Kelly. Early Christian doctrine... pages 446-448: "There are certainly pas­sages in [Augustin's] writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism... One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors....[Kelly addresses supposedly figurative views of Augustine, and then concludies]...So, just as the sacra­ment of Christ's body is after a certain fashion Christ's body, and the sacrament of His blood is after a certain fashion His blood, so the sacrament of faith is faith.' The argument here, however, presupposes Augustine's distinction between a sacra­ment as a sign and the reality, or res, of the sacrament to which reference has been made above.l Considered as physical, pheno­menal objects, the bread and wine are properly signs of Christ's body and blood; if conventionally they are designated His body and blood, it must be admitted that they are not such straight­ forwardly but 'after a fashion'. On the other hand, in the eucharist there is both what one sees and what one believes; there is the physical object of perception, and the spiritual object apprehended by faith, and it is the latter which feeds the soul. Even in the passage cited, Augustine's language is fully consistent with his recognition of its reality and actual presence."

2 Philip Schaff History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600..... " The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . . In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim…… [Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements."

3 Maurice Wiles and Mark Santar, Documents in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1975, 173...... "Finally, John Chrysostom and Augustine explore the social connotation of participation in the Eucharist: the body of Christ is not only what lies on the altar, it is also the body of the faithful."

As you guys can see, multiple sources attest to Augustine's realist beliefs about the Eucharist. Thus, an obscure Reformed theologian won't do 65.94.98.115 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The view that Augustine taught spiritual presence has bee upheld by many reformed theologians, including Thomas Cranmer ""Cranmer continued his rebuttal against Gardiner in contending Augustine never mentioned corporeality", but this is a disputed issue. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@ValtteriLahti12: Sorry to respond so late but I don't log in much anymore. The issue is that the article (and Riggs) make clear that we are not arguing over whether there is a real presence. We are agreed on that (at least Calvin and the vast majority of the Reformed tradition). The Reformed view is that Christ's real body and blood is really communicated to Christians in a spiritual manner. Maybe I need to work on the article some more if that is not clear. The question is whether Augustine clearly believes Christ's presence is communicated in a bodily manner, as later Catholicism and Lutheranism would teach. The usefulness of Riggs is not that he is a Reformed theologian, but that he understands the point of disagreement well enough to not just make the distinction over "real presence."  So even in the JND Kelly quote, I don't think he says anything contrary to Riggs statement about Augustine's view.  --Jfhutson (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The heading paragraph states that "The primary difference between the Reformed doctrine and that of Catholic and Lutheran Christians is that for the Reformed, this presence is believed to be communicated in a spiritual manner rather than by his body being physically eaten." This sentence is misleading because it suggests that Roman Catholic and Lutheran Christians believe in a "physical" presence of Christ in the Eucharist, when they rather affirm a "substantial" presence. Indeed, both Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians reject what is called "Capernaitic" or "carnal" eating, in which Christ is consumed in a physical or cannibalistic sense. Modification of the sentence is as follows: ""The primary difference between the Reformed doctrine and that of Catholic and Lutheran Christians is that for the Reformed, this presence is believed to be communicated spiritually by faith rather than through oral consumption." Other statements which imply a "physical" presence in Roman and Lutheran theology were corrected similarly, as well as sentences which suggested that Lutheranism shares the Roman Catholic idea of "local" presence. ChickenJockey21 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)