When Was Transubstantiation First Taught

[JimG]

tommyboy:

She gave birth to Jesus. God doesn’t have a mother…He’s eternal.

And Jesus is God. And Mary is His mother. So Mary is the mother of God. She is not eternal. God is. He chose her to be His mother. Why is this a problem?

JimG

 

[Curious]

okay…so when you say the “real presence of Jesus blood and body” does that mean it really actually turns into it? so you’re drinking real blood and eating real flesh?

I’m not trying to be gross…I promise…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes. His flesh is true food, his blood is true drink. The essence of the matter changes, even if the appearance remains the same.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, ca. AD 350:

"He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?" (Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4)

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ” (ibid, XXII:8)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JohnCarrol,

I don’t think that the concept of Transubstantiation is that the bread really becomes Jesus ( that is , as you say, taught right from the beginning),rather isn’t it an attempt by Aquinas to show the reasonableness of the concept using the Philosophy of Aristotle?

See St. Cyril quotes above. The Catholic/Orthodox Eucharistic theology was taught well before Aquinas.

 

[JohnCarroll]

itsjustdave1988:

JohnCarrol,
See St. Cyril quotes above. The Catholic/Orthodox Eucharistic theology was taught well before Aquinas.

Sorry Dave , I worded my post wrong. Yes, ALL the fathers believe in the real presence( it is why I want to be Catholic more than anything) . It wasn’t belief in the actual change of the bread into His Body that I was addressing , only the use of Aristotelian philosophy ( substance and accident) used to buttress the belief in the actual change ( i.e. Transubstantiation) that comes from Aquinas.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Curious:

okay…so when you say the “real presence of Jesus blood and body” does that mean it really actually turns into it? so you’re drinking real blood and eating real flesh?

I’m not trying to be gross…I promise…

Uh huh!! :yup: :yup: That’s precisely why it’s called the “Real Presence” :bowdown: :bowdown:

What you taste, but, is still “bread” and “wine” since their accidents remain the same. Their substances, however, change completely that they are NO LONGER bread and wine

“Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”

 

[JohnCarroll]

mrS4ntA:

Uh huh!! That’s precisely why it’s called the “Real Presence”

What you taste, but, is still “bread” and “wine” since their accidents remain the same. Their substances, however, change completely that they are NO LONGER bread and wine

“Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”

Put another way, as one Protestant said, “If I really believed that Bread was Jesus , I would enter the Church on my knees and never get up.”
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

 

[Todd_Easton]

adorer:

Does anyone know when this was first taught? Similarly, why do we have to have a priest to know we are consuming Jesus’ body and blood? Any information on this would be very helpful.

Here are some of the earliest teachings on the concept of Transubstantiation outside of John 6 and the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper:

St. Paul, writing about A.D. 56, said:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27)
“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (1 Cor 11:29)

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing about A.D. 107 in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, said:
“They [Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

St. Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155 in his First Apology, said:
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but…have we been taught…is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

St. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing about A.D. 180, in Against Heresies said:
“…the bread, …when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.”
Jesus “has acknowledged the cup…as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread…He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.”
“…the mingled cup [of wine] and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made”

 

[sparkle]

JimG:

Transubstantiation simply puts the basic belief into philosophical terms. It means that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Yes, it uses Aristotlian philosophy to describe this change.

The full doctrine could be stated this way:

After the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine are gone, changed into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus. Only the appearances (what Aristotle and Aquinas call the “accidents”)of the bread and wine remain. The substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ becomes present, under the appearance of bread and wine. Where His body and blood are, so is His soul and divinity, the complete Jesus, whole and entire.

JimG

Beautifully put JimG!!!

 

[Cube2]

Does anyone know when this was first taught? Similarly, why do we have to have a priest to know we are consuming Jesus’ body and blood? Any information on this would be very helpful.

Please check in the link: blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/transub.htm

A section of it reads:
Prior to the Council of Nicene ( 325 AD ), and shortly there after, the belief of transubstantiation was totally unknown. There is no written record describing or acknowledging the existence of this doctrine.
Transubstantiation as a term, was apparently first used by the archbishop of Tours, Hildebert of Lavardin (1056 - 1133 AD ). The doctrine was authoritatively declared to be the faith of the church at a council held in Rome under Pope Gregory VII in 1079, and again in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215AD.

From the original meaning of the word priest or where it is derived from, a priest is a male person consecrated to offer sacrifices to God.
Transubstantiation is equivalent to a sacrifice that were offered during the OT. Thus for the sacrifice to be authentic, it had to be offered by a priest, and not a layman.