Who was Folmar?
Folmar (sometimes cited in older sources as “Folmar of Hohenbourg” or “Folmarus”) was a figure discussed in early modern Catholic heresiology. According to St. Alphonsus Liguori in History of Heresies, Folmar held a peculiar interpretation of the Eucharist:
He accepted that the bread and wine represented Jesus’ body and blood, but he denied that the “body” in the Eucharist included the bones. In other words, he argued that Christ’s flesh could be present in the sacrament without the skeletal parts, including notably the appendix (or bone generally).
He also maintained that the wine was literally Christ’s blood, while the bread was his flesh minus the blood and bones.
St. Alphonsus mentions Folmar in the context of heresies related to misunderstandings of the Eucharist’s real presence.
Context in Catholic Theology
Catholic doctrine teaches that, in the Eucharist, the whole Christ is truly and substantially present: body, blood, soul, and divinity—what theologians call the doctrine of transubstantiation. This means that it is not merely symbolic; Christ is entirely present under the appearances of bread and wine.
Folmar’s point, however, is interesting from a scriptural angle:
The Bible speaks of Jesus’ flesh and blood, but there is no explicit mention of bones being present in the Eucharist. For example, the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels repeatedly emphasize “bread is my body” and “wine is my blood,” with no explicit reference to bones.
Folmar seems to have taken this literal absence of “bones” in Scripture as theologically significant, arguing that the Eucharist might correspond only to Christ’s flesh minus the skeletal parts.
Catholic Response
The Church rejected Folmar’s view because it limits the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is theologically unacceptable. Transubstantiation implies that every part of Christ’s humanity—flesh and bones—is present, though under the accidents (appearances) of bread. The notion of excluding bones is inconsistent with the real presence, which is total and not selective.
Philosophical and Scriptural Reflection
If one takes Scripture strictly, bones aren’t mentioned in the Last Supper. Folmar’s thinking reflects a literalist reading of Scripture combined with a naturalistic view of Christ’s body. But Catholic theology argues that Scripture doesn’t need to enumerate every anatomical detail for the sacrament to be fully efficacious. The Eucharist is mysteriously real beyond what can be observed in the natural order.
In a way, Folmar’s argument is a bit humorous to modern eyes: he’s essentially asking, “Where’s the appendix in the Eucharist?”—a question that illustrates how literal-minded interpretations can lead to very odd theological conclusions.