Did the Early Church Believe in Transubstantiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FallenCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
100% yes. No question. The word wasn’t coined until much later, but it has been explained over and over again in the Early Church.
 
The intro to the article says it all…Today’s post is intended to answer an important question from a historical standpoint. However, it ought to be stated at the outset that Scripture must be our final authority in the determination of sound doctrine and right practice.

The Scripture does not make itself the final authority…Jesus established a Church…not the Bible…to determine what is sound doctrine.

The question you should be asking…is the writer making himself the final interpreter of what Scriptures says?
 
@FallenCatholic, you ask: “Did the early church believe in transubstantiation?” You’re not likely to get a clear and unambiguous answer to your question, either from the Catholic or the Protestant side, for a fundamental reason: the word “transubstantiation” was not coined until many years after the period of the Early Church Fathers. The earliest writer to use the term, as far as I’m aware, is St Peter Damian, writing in or around the 1070s.

As a result, people on both sides of the argument can only sift through the writings that we have, in the hope of finding a snippet here and there that they can appeal to in support of their claim, whichever one it is, in full awareness that their opponents will be free to reinterpret the passage in their own way.

I notice that the article you linked to includes a famous quotation from Augustine, which seems to support the Protestant view. In more serious scholarly studies this paragraph from Augustine is usually paired with one from Ambrose, which points more clearly in the Catholic direction. The authors of this article, however, opted to leave Ambrose out. Here are the two passages:

Ambrose.—Let us use the examples He [Jesus] gives, and by the example of the Incarnation, let us prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? If it is the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words, another nature is spoken of; after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. And you say, “Amen”, that is, “It is true”. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks (On the Mysteries, 9.53-54).

Augustine.— If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
people on both sides of the argument can only sift through the writings that we have
Click to expand...
What are the different sides to this “argument”?

The question is about believing in transubstantiation. I don’t know what alternative you, along with others, are proposing as a second position.

The many quotes I have read so far are about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but nobody has addressed if the bread persists (consubstantiation) or if it is replaced by the substance of the body of Christ. (Transubstantiation) Is it just a symbol, or is it a symbol and substance?

Nor has anyone addressed if they used Platonic philosophy instead of Aristotlean, something like there is an ideal in heaven which is realized in bread and wine like it was realized in Jesus and as it is realized in the Church, the Body of Christ. That also would be an alternative to aristotlean transubstantiation.

Are there 2 sides to this question? What are they?
 
If you look at the writings of the early Church Fathers (the first Christians after the Apostles), the first Christians clearly believed in the Real Presence. It’s available online. A few examples below - the Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on:

THE CANONS OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED IN THE CITY OF NICE, IN BITHYNIA, CANONS XVIII (A.D. 325): “It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.”

LEO THE GREAT, LETTER LIX, TO THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE (5th century): II. They are to be rejected who deny the truth of Christ’s flesh, a truth repeated by every recipient at the Holy Eucharist. Let such men be rejected by the holy members of Christ’s Body, and let not catholic liberty suffer the yoke of the unfaithful to be laid upon it. For they are to be reckoned outside the Divine grace, and outside the mystery of man’s salvation, who, denying the nature of our flesh in Christ, gainsay the Gospel and oppose the Creed …In what density of ignorance, in what utter sloth must they hitherto have lain, not to have learnt from hearing, nor understood from reading, that which in God’s Church is so constantly in men’s mouths, that even the tongues of infants do not keep silence upon the truth of Christ’s Body and Blood at the rite of Holy Communion? For in that mystic distribution of spiritual nourishment, that which is given and taken is of such a kind that receiving the virtue of the celestial food we pass into the flesh of Him, Who became our flesh."
 
Dovekin said:
Are there 2 sides to this question? What are they?
Click to expand...
The OP asked the question, “Did the early church believe in transubstantiation?”
There are two possible answers to the question:
1 Yes, the early church believed in transubstantiation
2.No, the early church did not believe in transubstantiation

I am not here taking into consideration the third possible answer, namely “At this late date it is impossible to have certain knowledge one way or the other.”
 
Last edited:
From the Apology of St Justin @ 150
Code: 
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.

And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge’noito [so be it].

And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

"And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." - (First Apology, 66)
 
I didn’t read the entire article because it is easy to see that the author has a biased opinion and will do whatever it takes to spin the argument in his favor. let’s just break down what he says here.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) …provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. …(Against Marcion, 4.40).

Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. …recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.

Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
Click to expand...
Sure the authors interpretation that Tertullian was writing against the Gnostics is sound, but why would a writing, that is clearly being written to explain that Jesus had a physical body, be used to interpret earlier Church Fathers? Especially ones writing about a different subject, the Real Presences? It’s two different subjects? This is a huge error in my mind.

Did you notice the author never took his assumption any further. He just made a blanket statement and never applied it. Let’s go ahead and read his assumption back into Ignatius.
Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).
Click to expand...
The author is trying to say here that Ignatius is saying these people are unwilling to accept the idea that the Eucharist is just a symbol. Seriously? Keep in mind Ignatius is speaking of Christians here that already believe in Jesus. They just hold heterodox opinions, which means they can’t conform to the orthodox standards of belief. Do you honestly believe anyone would have troubles believing the Eucharist is a symbol? If Ignatius words about the Eucharist are purely symbolic his words here make no sense. If the early Church truly taught and believed the Eucharist was only symbolic why would someone cause division because they are unwilling to accept a piece of bread could be a symbol? That makes no sense.

Hope this helps,

God Bless
 
Did the early church fathers process a belief in transubstantiation?

The answer is an emphatic YES.

Of course, the term itself – and terms such as “substance” and “accidents” – were developed over time.

But the earliest Christians clearly taught a substantial change – a real transformation of the Eucharist as Christ’s true body and blood.


Second century Christians coudln’t be any clearer:
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. – St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66
Click to expand...
And even earlier.

Ignatius of Antioch, who is associated with the Apostles:
They [those with heterodox opinions] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. – St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 7:1
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I agree as to the symbols that are used, but that they become something meaningful. “How can one have communion with a piece of bread”? It makes no sense. The same with water, like you said. Water is the symbol used at Baptism, but the sacrament itself is not a symbol. But the actual beginning of the Catholic life, since Jesus does the baptizing.
 
So the early Church believed in it.

But the question we should be asking is: How are we, Christians alive TODAY, supposed to know what the Eucharist is?

Are we supposed to scamper back 2,000 years ago, become experts in patristics or biblical Hebrew and Greek or history, and come to our own interpretation of such a fundamental Christian doctrine? Is that what Christ willed? Did he wanted us to have to re-invent the proper belief in every age, with no steady source of Christian Faith?

On the contrary, Christ, the final Revelation of God, said he would be with his church throughout the ages. We can be sure a teaching is of Christ if his Church, led by His duly appointed shepherds, in fact teaches it.

Look no further than the Catechism.

Or for that matter, if not Catholic, then any apostolic church that endures to this day — East or West, Catholic or Oriental or Chalcedonean Orthodox — they all believe in transubstantiation (even if not using the TERM, which is Latin-based).

The Apostolic Church of the first, of the third, of the fifth, sixth, and seventh, all the way through the Middle Ages until pre and post-Reformation, all the way until today has taught and practiced a belief in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The idea that the Church would become apostate so early on, and on such a fundamental Christian belief (“unless you eat the flesh you have no life in you…”), is not at all acceptable with the Christ of the New Testament, who promised divine guidance.

To all those Christians who do not profess the real presence: If the early Church got the Eucharist wrong, then how can you trust those very same theologians and bishops who determined your Bible?

As Saint Cyril said, when approaching the Eucharist, “do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King” (Catechesis Mystagogica V, 11-22), for early Christians indeed believed they were receiving their King and Lord in the mystery of the Eucharist.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
To all those Christians who do not profess the real presence: If the early Church got the Eucharist wrong, then how can you trust those very same theologians and bishops who determined your Bible?
Click to expand...
On this, we stand or fall.

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Of course, the term itself – and terms such as “substance” and “accidents” – were developed over time.
Click to expand...
Tim Troutman, the author of the article you linked to, begins his Introduction with these words:

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.

With that reservation, I’d say it is true that the early church fathers believed in transubstantiation. But it’s an important reservation. By the time the word “transubstantiation” was coined in the eleventh century, many books had been written, many homilies had been preached, and many bitter quarrels had been fought over the question of what, exactly, takes place on the altar when the celebrating priest speaks the words of consecration.

The question that the OP asked is, “Did the early church believe in transubstantiation?” Now, you have correctly pointed out that “the term itself – and terms such as “substance” and “accidents” – were developed over time.” For that reason, I think it would be helpful to reformulate the OP’s orginal question as folllows: “Might it be misleading to use the word ‘transubstantiation’ to designate the belief taught by the early church fathers?” And my answer to that question is Yes, it might be misleading, precisely because the early church fathers had no way of foreseeing in what directions their teaching was going to develop in later centuries. When we use the word “transubstantiation” today, we convey a meaning that the early church fathers might very well not have recognized as their own. As I said earlier, if we are going to attach the label “transubstantiation” to the teaching of the early church, we need to qualify that with Tim Troutman’s reservation that this “is not a claim that any particular father commanded a precise understanding of the doctrine as formulated by Trent.”
 
Last edited:
Yes, it might be misleading, precisely because the early church fathers had no way of foreseeing in what directions their teaching was going to develop in later centuries. When we use the word “transubstantiation” today, we convey a meaning that the early church fathers might very well not have recognized as their own.
Click to expand...
Right, but this goes for everything: Concepts like Trinity, sanctifying grace, magisterium, “Pope,” …and transubstantiation. I understand it might be misleading, but only in terms of terminology. I think that by far, most fathers held the essence of the teaching: That the bread and wine really do transform into Christ’s body and blood. So the “real presence” is not merely some spiritual presence around the Eucharist, or in the context of the gathered community, etc., but actually a real transformation of the Eucharistic elements. Justin Martyr, 2nd century, says as much.

For example, if some, like Eastern Christians, prefer not to use the later Western terminology, that’s fine. Both sides have used different terms to talk about the same realities: e.g., “theosis” and “divinization” in the East and “sanctifying grace” in the West.

But some Christians, like some of my friends, profess they also believe in the “Real Presence.” But on further analysis, it’s nothing like the “Real Presence” of the first centuries of the Church. To them, real presence means Christ’s presence in the context of the Eucharist/communion, but no real change in the bread and wine (or grape juice) itself.
 
Last edited:
That the early Fathers believed in and taught the Real Presence as opposed to a merely symbolic understanding is pretty easy to show, but transubstantiation is harder. Not only had the specific term not been coined yet, but the key difference between transubstantiation and other, similar explanations of the Real Presence is the former’s insistence that after the consecration, nothing that can meaningfully be called “bread” or “wine” remains, but only the outward appearance of same without their substance. Actively avoiding the terms “bread” and “wine” for the consecrated Species seems to be a relatively recent habit. The older writers, going back all the way to Paul in the NT, still use “bread” for what we would say is technically only the appearance of bread.
 
Usagi said:
Actively avoiding the terms “bread” and “wine” for the consecrated Species seems to be a relatively recent habit.
Click to expand...
That’s a very interesting point. Do you have any idea of when, more or less, that linguistic change occurred and it became “sacramentally incorrect” for Catholics to use the terms “bread” and “wine” to designate the consecrated species? Where would be the place to start looking?
 
FallenCatholic said:
It isn’t logical that people would walk away from Jesus over a perceived symbol.
Click to expand...
First, the Protestants invalidly ordained their ministers. Then, they stopped receiving the graces of Most-Holy Communion. Only then did they stop believing in the True Presence, and have to rationalize away the clear implications of scripture here.
 
runningdude said:
First, the Protestants invalidly ordained their ministers. Then, they stopped receiving the graces of Most-Holy Communion. Only then did they stop believing in the True Presence, and have to rationalize away the clear implications of scripture here.
Click to expand...
Historically, that only fits some groups of Protestants.
 
catholic1seeks said:
On the contrary, Christ, the final Revelation of God, said he would be with his church throughout the ages. We can be sure a teaching is of Christ if his Church, led by His duly appointed shepherds, in fact teaches it.

Look no further than the Catechism.
Click to expand...
Works for me.

And I don’t drive 18 miles on a weekday to attend Mass in order to visit and consume a “symbol”.
I’m there to visit and become briefly one with Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top