Transubstantiation and the Early Church

[hglundahl]

First of all, to hglundahl, I’m impressed with those two Latin articles you sent me. It’s good to find a fellow Latinist and thank you also to Rolltide for reposting your long article for my convenience

For my part you are welcome, hope Rolltide feels so too.

However I disagree with the argument you give here:

[previous quote does not appear in quote]

I am not convinced by this argument since a belief of a majority does not necessarily equal truth. I know you say as much above, but I am not inclined to believe in transubstantiation based on the numbers argument.

He gave numbers for real presence. Of those Catholics accept transsubstantiation and exclude consubstantiation, Lutherans exclude transsubstantiation and accept consubsstantiation. Orthodox, Nestorians, and I think Copts too do not take definite option between the two.

All of the Apostolic-Succession-at-least-materially-recognised by Rome (=all of above minus Lutherans plus Armenians) accept that Mass is a sacrifice and that Christ becomes present as Sacrificial Lamb.

Armenians have recently started rejecting Real Presence altogether, according to a book I read on them. According to a wiki I read last year or so, one thousand years earlier, they still held onto Real Presence, since Tondrakian heretics were then condemned among other things for rejecting Real Presence.

from: aeuna.org/origins.htm

Krikor Naregatsi (ca. 945-1003) gives us a summary of the doctrines of the Tondraketsis in his Letter to the Abbot of Kchaw Concerning the Refutation of the Accursed Tondrakians. Among other accusations he lists the following:

1. They deny our ordination, which the apostles received from Christ.

1. They deny the Holy Communion as the true body and blood of Christ.

1. They deny our Baptism as being mere bath water.

(there were seven more, ten in all)

On same page, the work Key of Truth is cited as secretly circulated among “Tondrakians” and confiscated in 1837:

1. The sacrifice of the mass is a lie, and the elements of the communion are not the body and blood of Christ, but ordinary bread and wine.

 

[hglundahl]

For my part you are welcome, hope Rolltide feels so too.

He gave numbers for real presence. Of those Catholics accept transsubstantiation and exclude consubstantiation, Lutherans exclude transsubstantiation and accept consubsstantiation. Orthodox, Nestorians, and I think Copts too do not take definite option between the two.

All of the Apostolic-Succession-at-least-materially-recognised by Rome (=all of above minus Lutherans plus Armenians) accept that Mass is a sacrifice and that Christ becomes present as Sacrificial Lamb.

Armenians have recently started rejecting Real Presence altogether, according to a book I read on them. According to a wiki I read last year or so, one thousand years earlier, they still held onto Real Presence, since Tondrakian heretics were then condemned among other things for rejecting Real Presence.

from: aeuna.org/origins.htm

(there were seven more, ten in all)

On same page, the work Key of Truth is cited as secretly circulated among “Tondrakians” and confiscated in 1837:

Note that Lutherans also reject the sacrifice of the Mass - contrary to “tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec” and limit the real presence by consubstantiation to the moment of reception DURING mass. Unlike Catholics and Orthodox (and the other apostolic episcopates too, I think), a sick Lutheran cannot get an already consecrated host waiting for such use outside mass: a Lutheran pastor rather comes home to him and celebrates a mini-“mass”.

 

[hglundahl]

Note that Lutherans also reject the sacrifice of the Mass - contrary to “tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec” and limit the real presence by consubstantiation to the moment of reception DURING mass. Unlike Catholics and Orthodox (and the other apostolic episcopates too, I think), a sick Lutheran cannot get an already consecrated host waiting for such use outside mass: a Lutheran pastor rather comes home to him and celebrates a mini-“mass”.

 

[hglundahl]

Hello everyone!

I’m new on CAF and glad to be here! To be honest I’m nervous about posting on forums like these…I’ve never really done this before!

Tried to take this in a pm, but you had exceeded quota:

sorry for last q in pm

I had forgotten you were the minister who had asked about transsubstatntiation vs consubstantiation on this thread.

But seriously, was the argument simply that Heliocentrism with Newtonian and related (like Relativity or Quantum) Physics leads to a set of critical basic values for the laws of nature, and if any had had a slightly other value, then we would not exist?

Or was it something quite other?

I cannot get the book itself and the (non-member) preview from Amazon gave no real view on where Medieval Metaphysics was debunked as less proving of a God.

 

[paperwight66]

Actually, that’s not quite right. We believe that Jesus is truly present, but in a sacramental way, not a physical way. If it were a physical presence, then it would be something that would be detectable – that is, Jesus’ physical presence would be in the accidents. It’s not – the accidents of bread and wine remain, but the substance of bread and wine is changed, and Jesus’ substance takes it place. That’s why it’s transubstantiation, not transaccidation…!

Thank you for picking up on that, Gorgias.

I would go further than your restrained reply. To say that Catholics believe that Jesus is physically present is more than ‘not quite right’. It is, in fact, plain wrong.

If He were physically present, He would be subject to ageing, death and decay, not to mention the impossibility of being physically present in the millions of Hosts throughout the world and throughout history. Is His body chopped up? At what stage does his Body ‘run out’ because there is no more left? Something physical occupies space, it is limited to the space it occupies, and if once alive, is subject to decay

Catholics believe He is SACRAMENTALLY present. This is a Real Presence, unrestrained by space and time.

 

[tonyrey]

This is very true. I suppose the same argument could be made that understanding how the bread and wine become the blood and body of Christ is definitely not as difficult as understanding and believing in the miraculous death and Resurrection. However, even though I understand and believe in the Resurrection and that God sustains everything (concepts obviously emphasized in all Christian church environments), to me the concept of transubstantiation is still very much an alien one. I grew up that regarded the bread and wine as purely symbolic. I’m just so used to that attitude that it is difficult for me to see how the bread and wine transforms completely.

It was quite a leap for me to even consider consubstantiation, but I knew that there must be something greater happening with the bread and wine than is claimed by many Protestant/evangelical churches. I just didn’t, and still unsure of, what. But these articles are definitely helping me understand the transubstantiation point of view, which is what I was looking for

I’m sure you would agree that Jesus wishes to identify Himself with us and us to identify ourselves with Him in every possible way. Our spiritual union with Him is incomplete unless we are united with Him totally - not just symbolically but with His glorified body.

In Him we live, move and have our being anyway. The only difference is that the personal element is missing. Nothing can surpass the joy of the person who is convinced Our Lord is as close to us as He was at the Last Supper with the Apostles…

 

[hglundahl]

If He were physically present, He would be subject to ageing, death and decay, not to mention the impossibility of being physically present in the millions of Hosts throughout the world and throughout history.

His glorified body is physically present in Heaven and does not age, die or rot. Bilocation is no more an obstacle to miracle than walking through walls.

Bilocation even happened to Padre Pio, by way of God’s refuting your argument.

 

[UnumCorpus]

Thank you, everyone! I’'m very impressed by how well read people here on CAF seem to be. These are definitely very compelling arguments, especially given the large number of early Christian sources which support the idea of transubstantiation. It still makes me wonder when other theories started being discussed. Were there heretics in the days of the early Church which claimed this? Such as from the dualists? Or was it only really explored when Luther and Zwingli started challenging the doctrine during the Reformation?

In Him we live, move and have our being anyway. The only difference is that the personal element is missing. Nothing can surpass the joy of the person who is convinced Our Lord is as close to us as He was at the Last Supper with the Apostles…

This is true, however I have known many Christians who do not believe in the Real Presence (they’re Pentecostals) who have experienced the presence of Christ in a very real and personal way. They may not experience Him in the way Catholics do (via the consecrated bread and wine) but some of them have felt the very real presence of the Holy Spirit. They fall down and speak in tongues, and I know a few relatives of mine who have felt a rush of heat go through them. Now this is interesting because my Catholic boyfriend has experienced something similar when taking the Eucharist…he also has felt this same sudden rush of heat, so strong that he almost fell down. And it wasn’t anything to do with his health, he knew it was from God.

I know this isn’t a theological argument in any way, but it is still interesting to me that Our Lord can use any means to get as close as possible to those who love Him. So be that through transubstantiation, or merely by worshiping and praying to Him intensely, the Holy Spirit can be intensely personal. So I do not think that the personal element is missing in those that do not believe in the Real Presence. Our Lord is omnipotent and can impact His followers any way He chooses.

 

[johngeorge]

Were there heretics in the days of the early Church which claimed this? Such as from the dualists? Or was it only really explored when Luther and Zwingli started challenging the doctrine during the Reformation?
…
So I do not think that the personal element is missing in those that do not believe in the Real Presence. Our Lord is omnipotent and can impact His followers any way He chooses.

If your boyfriend is Catholic, why not become Catholic too and marry him (until I knew you had a boyfriend I half had a crush on you)?

First Q: early dualists were totally against the Eucharist in any form, Zwingli (who attacked Real Presence) and Luther (who limited its extent in unprecedented ways) were for what they thought was the Biblical Eucharist but against the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Between them there were Tondrakians, who were condemned among other things for denying Real Presence with Sacrifice of the Mass, but of whom we do not know - or I do not know - if they had or had not any kind of - sham - Eucharist.

Now, as to argument the personal element is lacking without - at least longing for - the Eucharist, it is not wrong. God is Almighty, but Covenanters were pretty precisely Covenanters. They were unlike Narnia book readers and Pentecostals not Catholic even in unconscious morals, even in spirit. They were not really looking for a personal encounter with Jesus at all.

armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Tondrakians

which links to:

rbedrosian.com/a1.htm

 

[cc42]

The Holy Spirit can certainly impart graces in whatever way He chooses but from what I have read the Church always believed that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. My feeling is that Luther rejected the teaching of Transubstantiation because he felt it was based on a faulty understanding of Aristotle’s philosophy and too much steeped in his philosophy regardless. The other reformers started pitching their ideas in, such as Calvin and Zwingli, which didn’t acknowledge the Real Presence at all. These thoughts may have come up earlier on by someone but I don’t believe they were ever seriously held until the Reformation.