Did the Early Church Believe in Transubstantiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FallenCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FallenCatholic

Guest

By advise I think I received here, I come to you to help me understand this. I am seeking Catholic and non-Catholic sources to understand the longstanding belief of Christianity. So I posed a question to some non-Catholics if the ECFs believed in the Real Presense when did that change in history? When did the mainline Protestants come to be? This explanation of the ECFs is what I was given which clearly contradict the ECFs. Help!
 
I think there are good thoughts in the comments to the article. Especially quoting John 6:6, which the Protestants don’t seem to be able to answer.
 
Catholicism has always believed in transubstantiation. Protestants broke with this belief at the time of the Reformation.
 
Yes, that is part of my issue. It isn’t logical that people would walk away from Jesus over a perceived symbol.
 
I think perhaps the start of protestism happened in John 6 when some of the disciples left after Jesus said it was his body and blood. Those left and did what?..no longer believed he died and rose again?
 
Didache is one of them the post uses to say it is symbolic.
 
Last edited:
Would you please rephrase?
I think your post got attacked by the autocorrect monster!
 
FallenCatholic said:
Yes, that is part of my issue. It isn’t logical that people would walk away from Jesus over a perceived symbol.
Click to expand...
I know for me, it was the bread of life discourse that led to me accepting and believing in the Real Presence. I cannot imagine that the Lord would allow people to walk away over a simple misunderstanding.

The fact that those listening to him struggled with this word and murmured and questioned tells you that they were taking him literally just like they took the manna from heaven in the OT literally.

I mean, Christ turned to his 12 and said to them are you going to leave too? Peter’s response shows you that he struggled with it too, but because Christ held the key to eternal life Peter and the rest stepped out on faith and followed him. That’s powerful to me.

As the apostles struggled, so did the early fathers and so do the rest of us. It is through faith in Christ that the truth of the Real Presence becomes real for us.
 
OK, many errors in interpretation.

Mostly it seems to be because they say “symbol”, but if you understand what “symbol” really means here, it does not mean “symbol” as in “symbolic”, though of course the Eucharist IS highly symbolic (as well as literal). Also note what the priest says we are nourished by if you are wondering about the Didache.

Here’s an article

 
Now, I’m not going to name all the first church Fathers. BUT, we can say, the bread is a symbol of His flesh and the wine is a symbol of His blood. Before the Holy words of scripture are breathed over them, in voice. The Holy Spirit changes the Spirit of the bread and wine to His Spirit of His flesh and blood. Obviously, the word transubstabtiation came later. Jesus’s words are the power for the change. It’s clear as Crystal to me. Receiving communion has energy. I think the writer of that article, is taking their words, and emphasizing “symbol” inclusive before and after the Consecration. Symbol can only apply before consecration.
My humble thoughts
Tweedlealice
 
Actually, I think “symbol” can always apply. All the sacraments use physical realities to symbolize spiritual ones … but they also bring about what they symbolize.

Baptism uses water because it is easy to understand being “made clean” by washing with water … but it also really does make us clean spiritually.

The Eucharist uses bread and (usually red) wine because food and drink nourishes us, and because they resemble flesh and blood in a more palatable form. But they also really become Jesus in a form we can physically take into ourselves.

I think it’s reasonable to question whether the early Fathers believed in transubstantiation as such, much as it is reasonable to question whether they understood Jesus’ divinity in the specific terms chosen at Nicaea, because those terms were not in use yet in their day. I do think it’s obvious that they believed in the Real Presence in some form, rather than the purely symbolic view taken by a few vocal Protestant groups today, but whether they specifically held to the key point that bread and wine are not meaningfully present after the consecration is hard to tell. Certainly they were not as careful about avoiding those words when talking about the consecrated species as we are today.
 
Here’s what a couple of scholars say regarding Early Church belief in transubstantiation.

J.G. Davies explains how the Hebrew mind would have assimilated Eucharistic statements:

“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)

Edwin Hatch asserts that “it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” (Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.)

I hope this helps…
 
Code: 
 The first church was an evolving entity. Truly, a miracle. Feeling lost w/o the real presence of Jesus, holding on to His teachings, reveling in amazement at the power of the Holy Spirit in them, they pressed on under severe persecution.
That our church exists today,again,is miraculous.
It’s amazing how different ideas popped up. JESUS, man only. Prophet not God. JESUS, man and God. Like man could raise the dead!
Anyway, we are.
 
I’m not sure if I understand your question, but yes the early church fathers did believe in Transubstantiation. Look up the article “The Real Presence” on Catholic Answers for a complete look at numerous ECF’s take on the matter, all in agreement on the real presence of the Eucharist.
 
I don’t know why my first line is strange?? Not the same font or type.
 
I like that sentence.

Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.”
 
My understanding was for that moment, they could not believe those words. They were reviled as if it were cannabalism. Later, who knows. If they kept that idea, unbelief! If time and other situations arise, maybe they could accept it.
Its like these movies today. Guess and rewrite the endings. SMILE.
 
The Eucharist is both a symbol and a reality. The bread both symbolically represents Christ’s body, but also really is Christ’s body. The outward appearance is symbolic. The actual substance is His body in reality. None of the quotes say this is a mere symbol. The Bread of Life discourse clarifies the issue completely.
 
Great article you linked. I learned a lot from it. Thanks.

Yesterday right after mass, the person sitting next to me leaned over saying: “I was reading about a saint who, in a vision, was presented with the child Jesus, to hold in her arms.” Then he added: “What we have just received, (the Body and Blood) I would rather have, any day.”

That truth inspires awe, fear, trust, peace and so much more that makes up our relationship with the almighty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top