Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

ufamtobie

Guest
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 2:15)

“And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration. The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well. Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ’s presence at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

The early Church believed that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME
St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope. 80 A.D.

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR 2nd Century beheaded with six companions sometime between 163 and 167 A.D.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS
St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,

The list goes on and on that the Early Church BELIEVED in the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Eucharist.

For those who do not believe, ask yourself this question: The Early Church believed that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, why is it that I don’t.

Ufam Tobie
 
I think we may need to differentiate between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation”. Some define “Real Presence” as the what, as in, the belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and “transubstantiation” as the how, which bring in substance and accidents.
 
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 2:15)

“And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration. The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well.
If Transubstantiation is correctly defined in the part I bolded, then I can sign on, as I believe every syllable to be true. I think, though, the definition goes into more detail than that. It is that extra detail that is problematic for Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and some others.
Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ’s presence at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.
I will let our Anglican siblings speak for themselves, but certainly Lutherans would deny this.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.
Interesting how the bolded areas in your quote and mind sound so similar.
Jon
 
If Transubstantiation is correctly defined in the part I bolded, then I can sign on, as I believe every syllable to be true. I think, though, the definition goes into more detail than that. It is that extra detail that is problematic for Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and some others.

I will let our Anglican siblings speak for themselves, but certainly Lutherans would deny this.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Interesting how the bolded areas in your quote and mind sound so similar.
Jon
Anglicans on this, as on all things, wander all over the lot. You can find those who accept Trent, Session XIII, canon 1, in fact. You’re talking to one, for example.

Many Anglicans affirm the Real Presence. It’s why we reverence the Presence on the altar, including the reserved sacrament in the Tabernacle, why there is a piscina, communicating with consecrated ground, in the sacristy, why no one not ordained to orders may touch the consecrated Body and Blood, why we have Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, etc, etc.

I get to explain this. from time to time, to folks who tell me what Anglicans believe .

GKC
 
I think we may need to differentiate between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation”. Some define “Real Presence” as the what, as in, the belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and “transubstantiation” as the how, which bring in substance and accidents.
I do that, yes. And I have no problem with either concept.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
 
Orthodox do believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ during the Anaphora, but do not explain how. Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain how.

Most simply say, “the Change” and leave it at that.
 
Orthodox do believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ during the Anaphora, but do not explain how. Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain how.

Most simply say, “the Change” and leave it at that.
Perhaps we all should

Jon
 
If you are attempting an explanation, transubstantiation is as noble an effort as one might hope for.

Not that it should be de fide, though.

GKC
I actually agree, but could put forth the same thought about sacramental union, including that it shouldn’t be de fide. It is why I prefer the Apology’s statement on the real presence over later statments in The Confessions.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top