Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[Steadfast]

Hogwash.
**He had a Catholic **understanding of the Eucharist.
You are here merely to antagonize the Catholics.
**Do your homework **- and find another hobby.

No, I have asked to be shown that the early church fathers believed in Transubstantiation.

Every passage adduced thus far can also be understood to teach and uphold the Lutheran view while Transubstantiation proper cannot be directly inferred from them,without the assumption that the being, becoming or change spoken of necessitates the consequent absence of the bread and wine, only the accidents remaining.

The point is that transubstantiation is a theory developed to explain the Real Presence, but the doctrine itself was unknown to the early church.

This doesn’t make it wrong, but it does make drawing a line from current Catholic belief to the first centuries of the church somewhat of a, erm, creative undertaking.

 

[Steadfast]

It’s been a many a long year since I discussed Lutheran theology with a Lutheran. Don’t some Lutherans hold that the bread and wine go back to being plain old bread and wine afterwards? If so, what do you say to undo it? Can you use the same species next week?

For what its worth, even though you are missing the boat on Irenaeus, I do love your signature.

The usual Lutheran belief is that the Sacrament is only “complete” in the whole Sacramental action so that it is only a whole, real, Sacrament not only when the words have been said but when the meal has been faithfully received.

As such, most Lutheran churches will reserve and re-use any undistributed bread and the Pastor(s), elders or servers will consume any remaining wine

 

[East_and_West]

How well versed are you in Lutheran Sacramentology?

Are you not aware that we believe teach and confess that the bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus given for us? That they ARE the true Body and Blood of Jesus?

The formulation “in, with and under” is technical, but even so it doesn’t negate the understanding that in the Sacrament we receive what has become, what is, the Body and Blood of Christ.

So its not bread and wine?

 

[ralphinal]

The usual Lutheran belief is that the Sacrament is only “complete” in the whole Sacramental action so that it is only a whole, real, Sacrament not only when the words have been said but when the meal has been faithfully received.

As such, most Lutheran churches will reserve and re-use any undistributed bread and the Pastor(s), elders or servers will consume any remaining wine

That is different than it was explained to me. I like your way better.

I was told by a Mizzu Synod paster that it ceased to be at the end, but the part of it being consumed was not mentioned. So, according to this theology, if someone who does not beleive consumes the bread and wine, is it still the Body and Blood?

 

[eliasaph99]

How well versed are you in Lutheran Sacramentology?

Are you not aware that we believe teach and confess that the bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus given for us? That they ARE the true Body and Blood of Jesus?

The formulation “in, with and under” is technical, but even so it doesn’t negate the understanding that in the Sacrament we receive what has become, what is, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Please quote from more than one ECF who uses words like “in, with and under.”

I have never seen one.

I see lots of “is the Body” and “is the Blood” and “becomes the Body” and “becomes the Blood.”

Show me multiple quotes which indicate that the ECF’s as a group generally believed the Eucharist was still bread and wine and then reverted to being only bread and wine at a later time.

 

[uglygal]

I’m not an authority on this topic, so if I’m wrong please correct me. But doesn’t the eucharist take on a symbolic meaning, an allegory of sustaining oneself on essence of the living Word of God. Much like Jesus said, “man doesn’t live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (or something like that, I’m sure I’m almost right). Is that not what the Eucharist is? To be nourished in a radical way by the Word of God (Jesus, the Logos)

I therefore think the challenge to change the bread and wine into flesh and blood is misguided (albeit a challenge I can sympathize with). In essence, I think the entire substance and nature of Eucharist is misunderstood by you dear one. The changing of mere bread and wine into the body and blood of God did occur before the very eyes of mankind 2000 years ago when Jesus took on flesh. The meager “bread and wine” (humanity) was transformed into the Divine (God Incarnate).

I am not a christian but this is how I understand the concept of eucharist, so I may well be wrong. I’m sure some intelligent god-child will correct me if I am.

If I am correct - your miracle transformation has come and gone and you failed to see it and continue to fail to see it.

In God’s Light

 

[chet]

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
Lanciano, Italy Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

* The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

* The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

* The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

* In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

* The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.

* The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

* In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

* In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

* The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.                                                                                                                           
 [therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html](http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html) 
                                                                                    Much more proof here! Pictures other evidence. Hope this helps!

 

[Jordan_Francis]

But that’s what we say, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. We just don’t say that they stop being bread and wine and neither does Irenaeus.

Are you not aware that we believe teach and confess that the bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus given for us? That they ARE the true Body and Blood of Jesus?

The formulation “in, with and under” is technical, but even so it doesn’t negate the understanding that in the Sacrament we receive what has become, what is, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Steadfast,

I think we all recognize the term “transubstantiation” is a scholastic term not present with the Church Fathers. That being said, they clearly teach a substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is the most logical elaboration of that understanding.

If the bread still remains bread, then in what way does Christ’s flesh** become present substantially**? Obviously we do not see bits of Christ’ flesh in the bread, we do not see his flesh at all. So somehow, around or under or in the bread, Christ’s flesh is invisibly present and undetectable? How can something be substantial yet not visible?

The Catholic position teaches that Christ’s flesh is substantially present and we can see this by means of the sign of bread. To actually transform it into his flesh would be bloody and unfitting and so the accidents are retained but they never-the-less indicate substance.

To say that the substance is present without an accident of any kind does not make sense to me.

 

[porthos11]

But that’s what we say, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. We just don’t say that they stop being bread and wine and neither does Irenaeus.

Cyril does.

 

[chet]

It is a scientific fact that things are not always as they seem. For example: Right now as you are sitting in front of your computer screen reading this you may perceive that you are not moving; When in fact you are moving at a very high rate of speed. You are on the Earth, and the Earth is spinning. It is also revolving around the Sun which is also in motion.Do you believe in air? Do you believe in God? Not every reality is sense perceptible. Some things rely on faith.

 

[chet]

Too believe in Transubtantion you must accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Obviously you do not.

Transubtantion is at the consecration the bread and wine are changed in to the body and blood of Jesus, the characteristics are of bread and wine , but are his body and blood

john

John in post #53 has it right! Jesus said to Peter what ever you declare bound on earth will be declared bound in Heaven.Jesus also said He had more to tell his Apostles, but they weren’t ready for it yet. So he would send to them the Spirit of Truth who would guide his Church into all truth.So if you are not under the authority of Peter,You are not in Jesus’ Church:and you do not have the fullness of the Truth which is Jesus:The truth the way and the life!

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by Steadfast View Post
But that’s what we say, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. We just don’t say that they stop being bread and wine and neither does Irenaeus.

Cyril does.

I would like to read where Cyril said otherwise. Can you please give the link?

 

[Contarini]

Please quote from more than one ECF who uses words like “in, with and under.”

I have never seen one.

I see lots of “is the Body” and “is the Blood” and “becomes the Body” and “becomes the Blood.”

Show me multiple quotes which indicate that the ECF’s as a group generally believed the Eucharist was still bread and wine and then reverted to being only bread and wine at a later time.

Not fair–the OP puts the burden of proof on you. You don’t have to take it up. But the OP never claimed to prove that the Fathers held the Lutheran view. The point is that the teaching of the Fathers (at least until the fourth century) is fully compatible with either the Catholic or the Lutheran views. It’s quite general language. In the fourth century you do start seeing language about transformation of bread into body so that it’s not bread, or at least not “common bread,” any more. I think this may imply something like transubstantiation (I believe Steadfast would disagree). But until that point the language is not definite enough to make such a case.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hogwash.
**He had a Catholic **understanding of the Eucharist.
You are here merely to antagonize the Catholics.
**Do your homework **- and find another hobby.

Instead of insulting Steadfast, how about proving that Irenaeus’s statement is incompatible with the Lutheran understanding. You are shouting and blustering because you can’t actually prove your case.

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

Please quote from more than one ECF who uses words like “in, with and under.”

I have never seen one.

I see lots of “is the Body” and “is the Blood” and “becomes the Body” and “becomes the Blood.”

Show me multiple quotes which indicate that the ECF’s as a group generally believed the Eucharist was still bread and wine and then reverted to being only bread and wine at a later time.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that these ECF’s held to a strictly Lutheran view of the Sacrament.

My point is that the doctrine as these fathers explain it, while clearly teaching a Real Presence, does not necessarily teach Transubstantiation either.

The Lutheran view has the benefit of simplicity, thus it is perhaps easier to see in the quotes given, it goes no further than the fathers who just didn’t think in terms of substance and accidence as separable aspects of phenomona.

Transubstantiation is more complicated. It doesn’t stop at the idea that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ (which is as far as the ECF’s go and thus far Lutherans and Catholics both go with them) but goes on to tell us that something happened to the bread and wine in the Sacramental action. It tells us that the bread and wine cease to exist substantially. It tells us that all that remains is the appearance or “accidens” of bread and wine.

The ECF’s never go this far.

The Lutheran view is fully in keeping with the fathers cited.

In order for it to be said that the Church’s teaching on the Sacrament “has always been” Transubstantiation, or even that the church’s belief “has always been the same” (without specific reference to Transubstantiation proper) one would expect it to be maintained by these men. In order to reasonably say that it was in fact maintained by these men one would be justified in expecting some dilation on the state of the “terrestrial elements” after the “confection” of the Sacrament, since it is key to the whole idea. But they never do this, therefore it cannot be reasonably maintained that they taught Transubstantiation.

 

[Steadfast]

Steadfast,

I think we all recognize the term “transubstantiation” is a scholastic term not present with the Church Fathers. That being said, they clearly teach a substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is the most logical elaboration of that understanding.

If the bread still remains bread, then in what way does Christ’s flesh** become present substantially**? Obviously we do not see bits of Christ’ flesh in the bread, we do not see his flesh at all. So somehow, around or under or in the bread, Christ’s flesh is invisibly present and undetectable? How can something be substantial yet not visible?

The Catholic position teaches that Christ’s flesh is substantially present and we can see this by means of the sign of bread. To actually transform it into his flesh would be bloody and unfitting and so the accidents are retained but they never-the-less indicate substance.

To say that the substance is present without an accident of any kind does not make sense to me.

It’s not a question of terminology, it’s a question of ideas. The very idea, with or without the terminology, just isn’t there because these men didn’t think in aristotelian terms and therefore they gave no opinion on what happened to the “substance” of the bread and wine after the words of consecration were spoken.

I doubt very much that the idea that a thing could have its appearance separated from its essence would have made any sense at all.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

It’s not a question of terminology, it’s a question of ideas. The very idea, with or without the terminology, just isn’t there because these men didn’t think in aristotelian terms and therefore they gave no opinion on what happened to the “substance” of the bread and wine after the words of consecration were spoken.

I doubt very much that the idea that a thing could have its appearance separated from its essence would have made any sense at all.

According to this thinking con-substantiation and transubstantiation would be equally as flawed because both employ a philosophy not really present to the Church Fathers. The bottom line is that we do not know how exactly the CF’s understood the bread to become His Flesh, we only know that they taught substantial presence.

That is the key question, how is Christ substantially present in the Eucharist?

It will never make sense to us, but I think we can make more sense of it by transubstantiation, by believing that the bread comes to indicate substance, otherwise we are left with invisible flesh undetectible by any means whatsoever hovering around the bread.

You should also consider this in terms of biblical imagery. Christ called himself “the Bread of Life”. The bread is the symbol of his flesh, the symbol indicates the reality when Christ employs this metaphor.

Likewise the Eucharist works the same; bread is the sign of his flesh, the bread indicates the reality. The bread does not have its own essence, but serves as a symbol of Christ’s flesh.

 

[Steadfast]

Jordan,

That’s why Lutherans don’t believe in Consubstantiation either, regardless of what you may have heard.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Lutherans never used the word ‘consubstantiation’, and official documents from the Lutheran communion repudiate it. This should be a null and void argument.

As far as “proving” T. or the Real Presence… you can’t prove a mystery, silly folks. And that is the definition of a sacrament, whether one is Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

Sometimes… it may actually be that simple. Simple gifts, much grace.

O+

 

[elvisman]

Instead of insulting Steadfast, how about proving that Irenaeus’s statement is incompatible with the Lutheran understanding. You are shouting and blustering because you can’t actually prove your case.

Edwin

I’m not shouting OR blustering.
My point to Steadfast is that he is nothing more than an antagonist. He REFUSES to listen, which is the reason that NOBODY will ever get through to him.
Like the old saying, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see”.