What other denominations believe in transubstantiation?

[Exporter]

1. A Priest of the Catholic Church is the ONLY one who can confect the Holy Eucharist. All others are pretenders.
2. Once while eating lunch with a Methodist Minister the discussion turned to Communion. He cofided to me that he believed in Transubstantiation. When I told him only a Catholic Priest can do that he said yes, it is the Catholic who can confect the Eucharist. So here was a Methodist Minister (old school) who says Catholic Priests are the only ones who can do it. By the way he was one who prayed to the Holy Spirit a lot.

 

[gardenswithkids]

ruzz:

I know this is going to come out wrong, but I’ll try anyway.

You got me curious.

What does The Church do with “leftover” Eucharist after a Mass?

Do they reuse it at another mass?
Is there a procedure for disposal?

What if it were to be accidentally dropped on the floor. What is the proper way to deal with that situation?

.

I know there are people out there who can answer this more thouroughly, but I’ll share what I can. (If I’ve got any part wrong, please correct me someone.)
After communion the priest drinks all that is left in the chalice, rinses out the vessels and drinks that too. He places the Hosts in the tabernacle. Some of the Hosts are brought to sick or homebound Catholics by Eucharistic ministers or priests. Some consecrated Hosts may be distributed at communion services on the priest’s day off. (A Catholic Communion service has the readings, possible a homily by a deacon, and distribution of Communion but without the prayers of consecration. Prayers of consecration take place in a Mass.)

If a Host is dropped on the floor, It should be picked up and consumed. Recently the Vatican wrote that the chalice must be non-breakable to prevent the situation of glass or pottery shattering with the Precious Blood…

 

[Genesis315]

1. A Priest of the Catholic Church is the ONLY one who can confect the Holy Eucharist. All others are pretenders.

1. Once while eating lunch with a Methodist Minister the discussion turned to Communion. He cofided to me that he believed in Transubstantiation. When I told him only a Catholic Priest can do that he said yes, it is the Catholic who can confect the Eucharist. So here was a Methodist Minister (old school) who says Catholic Priests are the only ones who can do it. By the way he was one who prayed to the Holy Spirit a lot.

So why wouldn’t this guy become Catholic?

 

[gardenswithkids]

So many Catholics think we are the only ones who believe in the Real Pressence. My husband is a former Lutheran and he gets really anoid with people who try to tell him what he used to believe.

I also want to point out there are a number of former Catholics who believe they do recieve Jesus in communion in their new church, (even if the denomination doesn’t teach that.) When I attended a Lutheran church with my husband for several years, I never quite knew what to make of it. One Lutheran pastor told me they did believe in transubstantiation–and he used that word–but I had heard previously they used the word consubstantiation.

Anyway, please don’t try to tell other people what they believe. Be sure you know what their church teaches before you start that, and be aware that they may not really believe what their church teaches. And just because someone believes it, doesn’t make it true.

 

[Catholic_Heart]

JMJ​

This is very true. I attended a Lutheran church for some time and almost joined it. They were very nice people indeed. Many “EX”-Catholics in the Lutheran church still believe it is in fact Transubstantiation too! Not what the Lutherans believe but what’s in a word most can’t pronounce or understand or believe anyway?

The Lutherans do believe in consubstantiation (sp?) like you said. Amazing though, when the “bread” and/or “wine” falls on the floor they just step on it. When they’re done with it they just pour it down the garbage disposal or drop it in the garbage.

As a Catholic, I believe in transubstantiation. I would never show disrespect to the body or blood of my Savior by stepping on Him or dropping Him in the garbage.

There is a difference. If the Lutherans really believed that Jesus was in the bread and wine shouldn’t they treat it with just a bit more respect then a floor mat?

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. That is the bread and wine REMAIN bread and wine, and Christ becomes present within them…This is different from transubstantiation, in which the bread and wine actually BECOME the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

 

[Absalom]

gardenswithkids:

Anyway, please don’t try to tell other people what they believe. Be sure you know what their church teaches before you start that, and be aware that they may not really believe what their church teaches. And just because someone believes it, doesn’t make it true.

I have to constantly remind myself of this. I can’t stand it when Baptists teach their kids that “Catholics worship Mary as God” and have never set foot in a Catholic church or known any Catholics (I’ve experienced this very thing far too many times in my life).

On another note - thinking about it from a Catholic perspective, couldn’t consubstantiation be considered something like idolatry? Catholics get accused of idolatry for our adoration of the Eucharist, but it seems to me that of the two theological concepts - transubstantiation and consubstatiation - consubstantiation would be the one more likely to be idolatry, since the substance of bread and wine remain. I don’t mean to attack Lutherans (really, folks! I have the utmost respect for followers of St. Luther ). I was just wondering what other people thought about it.

 

[O.S.Luke]

2. Once while eating lunch with a Methodist Minister the discussion turned to Communion. He cofided to me that he believed in Transubstantiation. When I told him only a Catholic Priest can do that he said yes, it is the Catholic who can confect the Eucharist. So here was a Methodist Minister (old school) who says Catholic Priests are the only ones who can do it. By the way he was one who prayed to the Holy Spirit a lot.

Exporter… that’s not a very helpful argument. My mother-in-law, a Catholic, was told by her priest (an “old school” priest) during her child-bearing years - after her 5th child - that using birth control would be ok. So here’s a priest of the One True Church telling her it’s ok to use birth control.

IMO… he wasn’t a very good Catholic, much less a good Catholic priest. My hunch is the Methodist Minister you spoke with wasn’t a very good Methodist, since he obviously didn’t believe in the Real Presence.

It’s an argument that will remain an argument. Catholics don’t think others have valid orders.

At a Catholic Eucharist, I have no trouble believing that Christ is really present. But I have a lot of trouble believing that those hosts are really bread…

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

Absalom!:

Catholics get accused of idolatry for our adoration of the Eucharist, but it seems to me that of the two theological concepts - transubstantiation and consubstatiation - consubstantiation would be the one more likely to be idolatry, since the substance of bread and wine remain. I don’t mean to attack Lutherans (really, folks! I have the utmost respect for followers of St. Luther ). I was just wondering what other people thought about it.

One historical fact: Luther never used the term “consubstantiation,” and most Lutherans, most notably Lutheran scholars, don’t use the term at all, just as most E.O.‘s don’t use the term transubstantiation. Luther’s writings found Jesus’ words, “This is my body” (Hoc est corpus meum) as a mandate for such an understanding.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

1. A Priest of the Catholic Church is the ONLY one who can confect the Holy Eucharist. All others are pretenders.

1. Once while eating lunch with a Methodist Minister the discussion turned to Communion. He cofided to me that he believed in Transubstantiation. When I told him only a Catholic Priest can do that he said yes, it is the Catholic who can confect the Eucharist. So here was a Methodist Minister (old school) who says Catholic Priests are the only ones who can do it. By the way he was one who prayed to the Holy Spirit a lot.

Not true, Orthodox priests can validly and licitly consecrate the hosts, as their orders and apostolic succession is considered valid. They believe in transubstatiation, although they reject the term.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Orthodox belief. Here is a small sample out of hundreds…

1. The first major one we find is Saint Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote that the “Logos enters the holy Bread” but I cannot find the reference. Anybody know the reference? Irenaeus is fully correct in his incarnational theology.
2. “On the Orthodox Faith” by St John of Damascus Chapter 13.

Concerning the holy and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord.

"The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself…

“Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us worship it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity.”

1. Saint Symeon the New Theologian:

“Forgiveness of sin and participation in life are bestowed on us not only in the bread and wine of communion, but in the divinity which attends them and mysteriously mingles with them without confusion …If Christ is God, His holy flesh is no longer mere flesh, but flesh and God inseparable and yet without confusion visible in the flesh, that is, the bread, to the bodily eyes. In His divinity He is invisible to the eyes of the body but is perceived with the eyes of the soul.”

1. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith (as the Confession of Dositheus became more widely known after it was sent to the Anglicans fifty years after its 1672 adoption) states:
   
   “We believe that in this sacred rite our Lord Jesus Christ is present not symbolically (typikos), not figuratively (eikonikos), not by an abundance of grace, as in the other Mysteries, not by a simple descent, as certain Fathers say about Baptism, and not through a ‘penetration’ of the bread, so that the Divinity of the Word should ‘enter’ into the bread offered for the Eucharist, as the followers of Luther explain it rather awkwardly and unworthily - but truly and actually, so that after the sanctification of the bread and wine, the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual true Body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand
   of God the Father, and is to appear in the clouds of heaven; and the wine is changed and transubstantiated into the actual true Blood of the Lord, which at the time of His suffering on the Cross was shed for the life of the world. Yet again, we believe that after the sanctification of the bread and wine there remains no longer the bread and wine themselves, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance of bread and wine.” Thus the Lord is in the Eucharist with all His being, and He is in each and every particle, down to the tiniest. He does not depart after the time of
   Communion, or at any time, so that the Body and Blood revert to their former nature. The Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist should be given the same worship and honour which we would give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. "

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. This is from the writings of the Greek theologian Dyobouniotes:-

"The belief of the Church is further manifested in the reverence and worship of the Eucharist as such, independently of Communion. The faithful pay worship to the Holy Gifts after they have been consecrated, by virtue of the Presence of our Lord, abiding under the form of bread and wine. This worship belongs to the Consecrated Elements not abstractly but concretely in their union with the Person of the Word of God.

"As the human nature of our Lord is an object of worship not as
regarded in itself, abstractly, but by virtue of the hypostatic union,
so the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presence with soul and Divinity, in every particle of the Consecrated
Elements.

“The Risen Christ, into whose Body and Blood the Elements are
transmuted, never dies, having a spiritual and glorified Body undivided from His Blood. In the Eucharist He is present with all His constituent elements, His soul and His Divinity, Body and Blood undivided.”

1. Fr Michael Pomazansky (a 20th century theologian in the US) “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”:–

"The bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Body and Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being, that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is inseparably united to His humanity.

“… those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being, that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man.”

“… to the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist there should be given the same honour and worship that we are obliged to give to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, in a nutshell, Fr Ambrose, is that the Orthodox Church believes that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of our Savior, correct?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Scott_Lafrance:

So, in a nutshell, Fr Ambrose, is that the Orthodox Church believes that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of our Savior, correct?

Yes indeed.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Fr Ambrose:

Yes indeed.

Great. I wanted to make sense of all the diverse quotations that you posted earlier, and ensure that I recalled the teachings from when I was a part of the Greek Orthodox church correctly.

 

[Liberian]

O.S. Luke:

The Anglican/Methodist branch speaks against Transubstantiation in the Articles of Religion; however, more and more scholars are of the opinion that it was born more of prejudice than theology. Real Presence is embraced by Anglicans and United Methodists, per official documents - but we tend to go the Eastern route and stay away from explaining too much of the mystery away.

Incidentally, back when I was still Episcopalian I was told (by my sister, who was in seminary to become an Episcopal priest at Sewanee at the time) that anybody who tried to base a theological argument on the Articles of Religion would be laughed off the stage. On the other hand, I thought that the Articles were official documents.

There is a serious difference between transubstantiation and Real Presence. The former is a mechanism for explaining how the latter has occurred. So what O.S. Luke said is correct, that the Anglicans and Methodists (supposedly) accept the effect without the explanation of how.

• Liberian

 

[triciafrancess]

As I remember from Lutheran confirmation classes (many years ago), Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ as each individual consumes them – so it’s more of a spiritual communion than a physical presence. I never heard the words “real presence” when I was a Lutheran.

Lutheran’s do not venerate or adore any consecrated hosts as the true body and blood of Jesus.

Now that I’m Catholic, I simply don’t understand how protestants can disregard what has been passed down from the apostles for over 2,000 years. If the apostles believed in the true presence of Christ in the eucharist, why do protestants think the apostles were wrong? Who was ever closer to Jesus than the apostles to understand what He meant when He gave us his body and his blood?

To me, that is a greater mystery than how bread and wine can be transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.

Tricia Frances

 

[O.S.Luke]

I have no disagreement that the Early Church and Fathers believed that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. My problem is that for several centuries, no one “explained” the change - it just happened and no one wanted or demaded an explanation (a common Western trait).

Transubstantiation became dogma when Rationalism and Thomism became the rage. The problem is… I don’t know any faith that “uses” Thomism anymore except the Catholic Church and some Evangelical traditions, and R.C.'s, to my knowledge, only use it in the case of Transubstantiation. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that for Thomas A., the reality of the Sacrament exists only in the ideal world of thought - because that’s where you have to be in order to understand substance and accidents. In my opinion, such thought is almost semi-Calvinist. Strict Calvinists destroyed the Sacrament is many Protestant circles, most notably Zwingli.

The main problem is that Thomism rests on the presupposition that “God exists” is rationally demonstrable. How can you do that? Luther and the Eastern church went more of the way of nominalism: language is - at best - inadequate when talking of matters theological and sacramental. How can you explain a mystery?

Luther wasn’t perfect… but my favorite Luther quote is this: "“When Christ’s body passed through the stone, His body remained as big and thick as it was before . . . . That is just the way He is and Christ can be in the bread, too.”

To me… Transubstantiation explains away the mystery. I certainly respect the belief, but I think metaphysics are at best inadequate to explain the mystery of the bread and wine becoming for us the Body and Blood of Christ. They simply are; Christ said they were, Early Christians believed it. No one needed an scientific/rationalistic explanation for 9+ centuries.

We Westerners just can’t stand mysteries!

O+

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

O.S. Luke:

I have no disagreement that the Early Church and Fathers believed that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. My problem is that for several centuries, no one “explained” the change - it just happened and no one wanted or demaded an explanation (a common Western trait).

I think it is interesting that Saint Irenaeus says that “the Logos enters into the bread.”

And Pope Saint Gelasius taught in the 5th century:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,
 which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it
 we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet
 the substance or nature of the bread and wine
 does not cease. And assuredly the image and
 the similitude of the body and blood of Christ
 are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

"Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease."

Now, looking at that in Orthodox-wise, Pope Saint Gelasius is entitled to his opinion and he may be correct, although the bulk of the Tradition is against him.

Looking at it through Catholic eyes, it would be necessary either to accept or to refute that this was an exercise of papal infallibility, that Pope Gelasius was exercising his petrine office and was therefore prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching anything erroneous.

His statement fits the criteria established for an exercise of papal infallibility. The Pope is writing on a matter of faith to confound the heresy of Eutyches and Nestorius and he intends the teaching to be accepted by them and their adherents and, one must conclude, by the universal Church.

As for 'similitude" - oh my!!! Not even going there!!!

 

[Contarini]

triciafrancess:

As I remember from Lutheran confirmation classes (many years ago), Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ as each individual consumes them – so it’s more of a spiritual communion than a physical presence. I never heard the words “real presence” when I was a Lutheran.

Then Lutheran catechesis is as bad as Catholic catechesis. All you have to do is read the traditional Lutheran formularies to see that a very literal doctrine of the Real Presence is one of the central Lutheran teachings. In many ways, Luther’s view was more literal than that of Aquinas. It’s true that Lutherans either don’t speculate about what happens to the Presence after the liturgy is over, or believe that it is no longer there. But that doesn’t make the Presence subjective or purely spiritual.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

O.S. Luke:

I have no disagreement that the Early Church and Fathers believed that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. My problem is that for several centuries, no one “explained” the change - it just happened and no one wanted or demaded an explanation (a common Western trait).

I don’t really think the explanation is the important thing for Catholics. Transubstantiation really isn’t a detailed philosophical explanation–not as dogmatized by Trent. The point is simply that it now is the Body of Christ and hence Christ can be worshipped as present in the Sacrament without danger of idolatry. If you’re willing to engage in Eucharistic Adoration, then I don’t think RC’s will ask too many questions about your metaphysics. If you aren’t, then something more than philosophical niceties is at stake.
O.S. Luke:

The problem is… I don’t know any faith that “uses” Thomism anymore except the Catholic Church and some Evangelical traditions, and R.C.'s, to my knowledge, only use it in the case of Transubstantiation.

I don’t think that’s true, although that’s where Thomas influenced dogma most heavily. I think the problem with a lot of criticisms of the role of Thomism in Catholicism (William Abraham’s Canon and Criterion comes to mind) is that people assume that Thomism either functions as a whole philosophical system, or doesn’t function at all. But that’s not the way Catholicism works. It’s quite deliberately eclectic. Thomism is perhaps the single most important philosophical/theological system in the history of the Catholic Church. But Catholic doctrine doesn’t depend on any one system. I don’t see that as a problem.
O.S. Luke:

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that for Thomas A., the reality of the Sacrament exists only in the ideal world of thought - because that’s where you have to be in order to understand substance and accidents. In my opinion, such thought is almost semi-Calvinist. Strict Calvinists destroyed the Sacrament is many Protestant circles, most notably Zwingli.

Zwingli wasn’t a strict Calvinist–he came before Calvin and wasn’t a Calvinist at all. I agree that Aquinas’s view, while not the same as Calvin’s, isn’t as different from it as people think. But I’m not sure why that’s a problem for you. (Wesley’s view of the sacrament, as far as I can tell, was more or less identical to Calvin’s but less afraid of using sacrificial language.) I don’t think it’s true that the reality of the Sacrament exists only in the ideal world of thought. Rather, Christ’s natural body exists under its proper dimensions in heaven. In the Thomist view, Christ’s body also is present in the Eucharist in a mysterious, spiritual manner, but the real physical body is nonetheless present. Yes, he uses a certain kind of metaphysics to make the point. But the point is one that isn’t (as far as I can tell ) significantly different from that of the Eastern Church. And if you think Calvin was too “low” in his view of the Eucharist, then you really have no reason for objecting to Aquinas either.
O.S. Luke:

The main problem is that Thomism rests on the presupposition that “God exists” is rationally demonstrable.

I don’t think Thomism rests on any one presupposition. That was one of Aquinas’s beliefs. But his various theological and philosophical views don’t stand or fall together. The idea that philosophies have one basic principle from which everything else is developed is a peculiar modern monomania (mostly German).
O.S. Luke:

How can you do that?

You can show that a First Cause exists possessed of certain attributes. I’m not sure the evidence is demonstrative, as Aquinas thought it was. But more to the point, Aquinas didn’t think that the God whose existence he could prove was identical in all specifics to the Christian God. So I think the common criticism of him on this point misses the mark. Few theologians have been more aware of the limitations of language in talking about God than Aquinas.
O.S. Luke:

Luther and the Eastern church went more of the way of nominalism:

I can’t see that Eastern theology has any similarities to nominalism, except in their common rejection of rational explanation of God.

It’s all very well to cite the East over against Thomism. But we both know that most Methodist churches don’t teach or practice a doctrine of the Real Presence that the Orthodox would think worth shaking a candlestick at. I say this as someone who can probably no longer remain Episcopalian, and for whom the only current alternative to Catholicism appears to be Methodism. So it’s a serious issue for me. The Methodist invocation of Eastern mystery seems a bit specious to me, when actual practice is so radically different.

In Christ,

Edwin