Transubstantiation and Real Presence

[Lenten_ashes]

Susan, there were Judaizers all throughout Palestine, why specifically mention Jerusalem? It’s because in all likelihood James was a Judaizer, and he was probably not the only Apostle, that is why there was much debate at the council. If the Apostles had all been of one mind, there would not have been much debate. There are many theologians who believe that James was a Judaizer, just do a google search.]

That’s a excellent point and something I’ve pondered as well.

His epistle seems to emphasize the importance of works. In my conversations with Muslims, they love his epistle because they believe it validates Islam’s position that Jesus was only a prophet and the message was status quo - keeping Mosiac law.

 

[Duane1966]

Other regions were not baptizing infants for a few more centuries. Many of the baptism protocols, like Ambrose’s The Mysteries are written only for believers and could not have included infants.

And yet St. Ambrose also said this:

“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant.”

St. Ambrose (“Concerning Repentance,” c. 387 A.D.)

I agree that other regions were not baptizing. These regions were, Australia, New Zealand, North America, South America.
Tradition holds that St.Polycarp was baptized by John, and his words indicate that he was baptized as an infant. This is an interesting read: antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes

Background

Infant baptism was not controversial in the Church during the first two centuries after Christ. St. Polycarp described himself as having been in devoted service to Christ for 86 years in a manner that would clearly indicate a childhood baptism. Pliny describes with amazement that children belong to the Christian cult in just the same way as do the adults. St. Justin Martyr tells of the “many men and women who have been disciples of Christ from childhood.” St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about “all who are born again in God, the infants, and the small children . . . and the mature.” St. Hippolytus insisted that “first you should baptize the little ones . . . but for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak or another who belongs to their family.”

The first recorded opposition to the practice comes from Tertullian in the third century. He objected to the practice of baptizing infants because of the heretical idea that sin after baptism was nearly unforgivable. His dissention should be understood within the larger debates of his day, centered around perceived laxity in church morals and government. Many of the greatest Fathers of the third and fourth centuries were not baptized until they were adults, despite having been born to Christian parents. Among them were St. Basil the Great, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The later baptism of these men reflects a larger crisis in the newly legalized Church under St. Constantine. One reason postponing baptism became popular was the desire of some Christians to counteract the new wave of baptisms of pagans wishing only to belong to the faith of their emperor. While not yet a requirement of Roman loyalty or citizenship, baptism ensured that one was on the right side of Rome. Postponing baptism emphasized the significance of the rite, and was an attempt to preserve the genuineness of the life for which baptism served as the initiation. Postponement had nothing to do with the validity of a child’s baptism. Many of those Fathers whose baptism was postponed insisted later on that families baptize their new born children, notably St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Controversy over infant baptism did not arise in its present form until after the Protestant Reformation. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on the practice. It was with Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), of the Swiss Reformed Church, that the first serious objections arose. Several of Zwingli’s students re-baptized themselves, proclaiming that they did so because their infant baptisms were invalid since they were not accompanied by professions of faith. This ignited a debate in the early Reformed churches, which was heavily influenced by social and political dimensions as well as theology. Soon after, former Anglican minister John Smyth (1570–1612) and his followers re-baptized themselves and the Baptist Church was born. The 1644 London Confession of the Calvinist Particular Baptists stated, “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispersed only upon persons professing faith.” There are many million Baptists today, and this position on baptism is still among their foremost doctrines.

Protestant objections to baptizing children did not emerge from a vacuum-sealed objective reading of the Scriptures. Such objections arose from assumptions which were of recent origin and should not be retroactively applied to the Scriptures nor to the Church which arose within and around them.

…

 

[Duane1966]

Is infant baptism biblical?

Yes, it is. While there is no description of an individual infant being baptized, the Bible describes five separate household baptisms:

• The Household of Cornelius, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”

• The Household of Lydia, Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”

• The Philippian Jailor’s Household, Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”

• The Household of Crispus, Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”

• The Household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”

**Some have argued that while the Bible may say ‘household’ or ‘family’ this does not have to include children. Maybe those households did not include children. While this may be the case, it is hard to imagine that at least one of these households did not include children. And given the fact that we have five explicit references to a whole household being baptized, we have to assume that many, many more such households were baptized. Surely some of them included children.
**
The word ‘household’ for any Israelite of the day included everybody in the household, children included. We must remember that a household always included children throughout the Scriptures. Every time God established or spoke about His covenant with the House of Israel, it included the whole of Israel: men, women, and children. Noah’s whole ‘household’ was taken into the ark with him (Genesis 7:1); Abraham had his whole household circumcised (Genesis 17:23), and specifically his son Isaac when he was eight days old (Genesis 21:4); the whole household of every family was taken out of Egypt, and God’s institution of the Passover specifically included the children (Exodus 12:24–28). If the Apostles had taught that children were to be excluded from full inclusion in the covenant, such an innovation would not have fit the prophetic covenants which preceded the fulfilled covenant enacted through Christ.

The pattern of the Old Testament covenants formed the framework for the apostolic understanding of the true covenant of Christ, and those covenants included children. They were covenants which were made with a nation, in which every household participated. This is what is expressed in the household baptisms of the New Testament. Even when an individual was baptized, this baptism placed him in a larger body. Individual adult baptisms occurred, but there were no individual covenants.

The Bible teaches us that under the Old Covenant, every male child was circumcised on the eighth day after birth. With his circumcision, the child became a full and complete member of the covenant and could eat of the Passover sacrifice. Baptism in Christ absorbed and fulfilled this rite, as it absorbed all initiation and cleansing rites of the day. Circumcision, we know from the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:5; Acts 21:21), was no longer necessary for the Gentile convert or his children. **Nowhere in the Bible is it hinted that while absorbing the rite of circumcision, baptism would suddenly and without precedent exclude children. **Jesus did not have a problem with children gaining full inclusion to the covenant: He Himself was circumcised as an infant (Luke 2:21), like John the Forerunner (Luke 1:59).

 

[susanlo]

And yet St. Ambrose also said this:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant.”
St. Ambrose (“Concerning Repentance,” c. 387 A.D.)

What chapter is this from? I can’t find this quote in this writing? newadvent.org/fathers/3406.htm

I know from On The Mysteries that he believed that foot washing removed Adam’s sin.

“32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

What sins was he washing away for infants?

 

[susanlo]

Is infant baptism biblical?

Yes, it is. While there is no description of an individual infant being baptized, the Bible describes five separate household baptisms:

• The Household of Cornelius, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”

• The Household of Lydia, Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”

• The Philippian Jailor’s Household, Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”

• The Household of Crispus, Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”

• The Household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”

Some have argued that while the Bible may say ‘household’ or ‘family’ this does not have to include children. Maybe those households did not include children. While this may be the case, it is hard to imagine that at least one of these households did not include children. And given the fact that we have five explicit references to a whole household being baptized, we have to assume that many, many more such households were baptized. Surely some of them included children.

I think that large multi-family households were the norm and I think that young children in the homes was quite likely. None of the household baptism accounts say that the “all” the household was baptized except for the jailer. But we see in Acts 16:34 that his “whole” household believed. This could either mean there were no children. Or it meant that all who could believe and repent were baptized.

I addressed this earlier in the thread. If I talk about “my whole household” to my friends they probably think I am talking about my husband, our kids and me. They wouldn’t assume I meant just my husband and me. However these were large extended families living together. When I was talking to a friend about this last year I told her that I was going to an extended family function (including my school-aged daughters and school-aged nephews) and a number of adult extended family members. I told her that when my family gets together we always discuss politics because everyone in my family votes and everyone is passionate about who the next president should be. I then explained some of the political ideas my extended family had. At the end of the story she could not tell me about any errors or deceptions. When I asked her if she thought that my 6 year old could vote she of course said “No. I thought you just meant all of the adults.”

If you believe that only an older child or adult could possibly be baptized, you then see this verse the same way. Did these people think their children could repent? Did they think they were sinful and needed forgiveness?

 

[Duane1966]

What chapter is this from? I can’t find this quote in this writing? newadvent.org/fathers/3406.htm

I know from On The Mysteries that he believed that foot washing removed Adam’s sin.

“32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

What sins was he washing away for infants?

My mistake. It is from his book On Abraham, book 2, chapter 11.

He also says this:

and do you say, “I am clean,” when, as it is written, not even an infant of a day old is pure?

-Ambrose Concerning Repentance, I,VIII,XXXVIII

I think that large multi-family households were the norm and I think that young children in the homes was quite likely. None of the household baptism accounts say that the “all” the household was baptized except for the jailer. But we see in Acts 16:34 that his “whole” household believed. This could either mean there were no children. Or it meant that all who could believe and repent were baptized.

I addressed this earlier in the thread. If I talk about “my whole household” to my friends they probably think I am talking about my husband, our kids and me. They wouldn’t assume I meant just my husband and me. However these were large extended families living together. When I was talking to a friend about this last year I told her that I was going to an extended family function (including my school-aged daughters and school-aged nephews) and a number of adult extended family members. I told her that when my family gets together we always discuss politics because everyone in my family votes and everyone is passionate about who the next president should be. I then explained some of the political ideas my extended family had. At the end of the story she could not tell me about any errors or deceptions. When I asked her if she thought that my 6 year old could vote she of course said “No. I thought you just meant all of the adults.”

If you believe that only an older child or adult could possibly be baptized, you then see this verse the same way. Did these people think their children could repent? Did they think they were sinful and needed forgiveness?

That’s an interesting story. I cannot help it that your friend is not observant, but others would have caught it right away.

More to the point though, and sadly for your argument, the word for household that is translated from the Greek is oikos. When used in the context of a family, it always means the entire family. So in every instance where the New Testament says household was baptized, it means entire family living in that house, including slaves.

I suggest you read a book by Joachim Jeremias called Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, an excerpt which you can read online. Here is what he says on Tertullian, a point that many seem to miss:

Everywhere, with the exception of Eastern Syria, we find in the second century infant baptism as an old and established usage of the Great Church, which both East and West agree in tracing back to the apostles. The evidence applies equally to the children of Christian and pagan parents; Tertullian alone made a difference between the two groups;** his advice to postpone the baptism of children referred to the children of pagan parents, and to them alone. Nowhere was there any ground adduced for the postponement of baptism of children of Christian parents, not even in Tertullian.**

You might be interested to know that in the Roman catacombs, there is inscriptions on sarcophagi that hold infants that died, stating their date of baptism. There are quite a few of them. The earliest has an inscription from the year 200 A.D.

 

[Church_Militant]

During the Reformation, Anabaptists, who do not practice infant baptism, were killed as heretics by both Catholics and other Protestants.

That’s not a documentation. Please cite your source for this.

 

[RyanBlack]

That’s not a documentation. Please cite your source for this.

I don’t have time to look up a source, but I have two master’s degrees in theology, with quite a few hours in church history. It is widely-known and an uncontroversial point that the Anabaptists were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike.

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t have time to look up a source, but I have two master’s degrees in theology, with quite a few hours in church history. It is widely-known and an uncontroversial point that the Anabaptists were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike.

“Widely known” is nothing more than a rash generalization in the very same vein as “everybody knows”. If you cannot provide a link to a source then your assertion is unsubstantiated and therefore quite possibly false. Master’s degrees etc notwithstanding…

 

[RyanBlack]

“Widely known” is nothing more than a rash generalization in the very same vein as “everybody knows”. If you cannot provide a link to a source then your assertion is unsubstantiated and therefore quite possibly false. Master’s degrees etc notwithstanding…

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states that the Anabaptists were "severely persecuted byou both Roman Catholics and Protestants and that the numbers killed were probably in the tens of thousands.

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay I finally found it myself but your source is not verifiable without a subscription or purchase. I suggest that if you plan to enter these discussion in the future you use sources that can be easily located and linked online.

The Wikipedia entry I found says that they were dealt with by secular authorities and that they held some of the same of the same ideals and doctrines that modern Jehovah’s Witnesses do, so I guess I can understand why they got crosswise with everybody.

Now, having deal with this off topic side bar perhaps we can return to the thread topic which is** Transubstantiation and Real Presence**.

 

[Wannano]

Okay I finally found it myself but your source is not verifiable without a subscription or purchase. I suggest that if you plan to enter these discussion in the future you use sources that can be easily located and linked online.

The Wikipedia entry I found says that they were dealt with by secular authorities and that they held some of the same of the same ideals and doctrines that modern Jehovah’s Witnesses do, so I guess I can understand why they got crosswise with everybody.

Now, having deal with this off topic side bar perhaps we can return to the thread topic which is** Transubstantiation and Real Presence**.

 

[Wannano]

Okay I finally found it myself but your source is not verifiable without a subscription or purchase. I suggest that if you plan to enter these discussion in the future you use sources that can be easily located and linked online.

The Wikipedia entry I found says that they were dealt with by secular authorities and that they held some of the same of the same ideals and doctrines that modern Jehovah’s Witnesses do, so I guess I can understand why they got crosswise with everybody.

Now, having deal with this off topic side bar perhaps we can return to the thread topic which is** Transubstantiation and Real Presence**.

:nope:

 

[Richca]

Thank you for trying to explain it. I think I understand some of what you are saying. It seems like an very complicated concept. When was it first determined to be this way?

I am happy to answers any questions to the best of my limited knowledge. The Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident made their way into eucharistic theology around the 11th century. Aristotelian philosophy, metaphysics, and terminology was common among the great theologians of the 13th century such as St Albert the Great (St Thomas Aquinas’ teacher), Alexander of Hales, St Bonaventure, Blessed Duns Scotus, and most illustrious of them all is the work and synthesis of St Thomas Aquinas. The terminology of *substantial change *occurring in the bread and wine at the consecration at Mass can be found in the works of some theologians back to the 8th or 9th centuries at least I believe. If we go back further to the Fathers of the Church not a few of them spoke of a change or transmutation in the nature of the bread and wine or the elements of the bread and wine which is essentially the same as later theologians would call a change of substance. An excellent book on the history of the theology of the eucharist in the Catholic Church and the theological-philosophical terminology surrounding this theology is by Rev. James T. O’Connor titled ‘The Hidden Manna - A Theology of the Eucharist.’

I don’t know if anyone can truly know how Jesus is present in communion.

 

[Church_Militant]

:nope:

Shake your head all you want, but they did indeed refuse military service, politics, and national allegiance so deal with it.

 

[Wannano]

Shake your head all you want, but they did indeed refuse military service, politics, and national allegiance so deal with it.

And the early church didnt?

 

[Wannano]

Shake your head all you want, but they did indeed refuse military service, politics, and national allegiance so deal with it.

And the early church didnt?

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Return to topic and remain you must.
Off topic posts removed have I.
Next, close thread will I if it continues.
Transubstantiation and Real Presence is topic.

 

[Peter_J]

I was starting to think up a Star Wars joke or quip I could post in reply to that, but then I decided that would be a little inappropriate.

Instead I’ll just say, thank God that we live in a society where we can disagree about the nature of the Eucharist and other sacraments without killing each other over them.

 

[Wannano]

I was starting to think up a Star Wars joke or quip I could post in reply to that, but then I decided that would be a little inappropriate.

Instead I’ll just say, thank God that we live in a society where we can disagree about the nature of the Eucharist and other sacraments without killing each other over them.

It is wonderful indeed that people can no longer physically kill someone for having a differing viewpoint on the nature of the Eucharist etc. While we have freedom to disagree we need to be mindful of slander which is a form of murder. A slanderer kills his victim over and over.