Acceptance Of Church Teaching

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='30 October 2009 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1256963745' post='1994260']
Thanks Nihil you are so kind. This could force me to add you as a friend. I could be wrong, but I just keep getting the feeling that cmother follows me around hitting me with a stick
[/quote]
No no, she's watching your back with that stick. Old people have to stick together.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='30 October 2009 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1256948514' post='1994143']
My problem with transubstantiation has been the importance of the 'Physical' body. One would logically think that the 'spiritual or eternal' body would be the important one. However Having said that, Jesus did have a supernatural body. Even though he suffered and was killed like any mortal, he also was able to walk on water. After the resurrection he entered the room though the door was locked and let Thomas touch his wounds without pain I would presume and then he ascended to heaven. This is quite different than what one would expect of a normal earthly body. So presently I have absolutely no difficulty with the concept of Jesus Body and blood in the Eucharist and that is why it is so important to me and to do things right as a special minister of the Eucharist. My only problem would be with the concept of the bread and wine no longer being physically present. The word [i]substance[/i] can have duel meaning depending on how it is placed. If we say "The substance of the human body is mostly water." We are obviously talking about it's physical characteristic. But if we say. "He was a man of substance." we are talking about his character. [b]What is wrong with the idea of the bread and wine co existing rather than appearing to exist but not?[/b]
[/quote]

Hi Mark. Thanks for a very genuine post.

For me, what it boils down to is the fact that Jesus said "This is my body" and not "This is my body ... AND a piece of bread".

For the early Church, this is essentially what they thought, too. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic points out, "In the earliest ages of the Church, Christ's words, 'This is my body', were understood by the faithful in their simple, natural sense". This was the tradition of the Church, all the way back to the apostles. We know this because Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle, and was such a strong proponent of the real presence. If Ignatius of Antioch were a strong proponent, then you can bet that he learned to be that way from John, and John understood Christ's words to be true when he heard them.

So, all the way back to the earliest Church, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was taught, even though it was not formally defined until the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s. That was the Church's teaching. Consubstantiation on the other hand was a human invention in the early part of the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Millenium. [b]It was a departure from the already well-established Tradition of the Church. And that's always a problem.[/b]

Here's a bit more from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm"]Consubstantiation[/url]:

[indent]
This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ's Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called "Impanation", a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

The subject cannot be treated adequately except in connection with the general doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Here it will be sufficient to trace briefly the history of the heresy. In the earliest ages of the Church Christ's words, "This is my body", were understood by the faithful in their simple, natural sense. In the course of time discussion arose as to whether they were to be taken literally or figuratively; and when it was settled that they were to be taken literally in the sense thatChrist is really and truly present, the question of the manner of this presence began to be agitated. The controversy from the ninth to the twelfth century, after whichtime the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholic dogma. In its first phase it turned on the question whether the Body was the historical body of Christ, the very body which was born, crucified, and risen. This is maintained by Paschasius Radbert and denied by Ratramnus in the middle of the ninth century. What concerns us here more closely is the next stage of the controversy, when Berengarius (1000-1088) denied, if not the Real Presence, at least any change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood. He maintained that "the consecrated Bread, retaining its substance, is the Body of Christ, that is, not losing anything which it was, but assuming something which it was not" (panis sacratus in altari, salvâ suâ substantiâ, est corpus Christi, non amittens quod erat sed assumens quod non erat-Cf. Martène and Durand, "Thesaurus Novus Anecd.", IV, col 105). It is clear that he rejected Transubstantiation; but what sort of presence he admitted would seem to have varied at different periods of his long career. His opinions were condemned at variouscouncils held at Rome (1050, 1059, 1078, 1079), Vercelli (1050), Poitiers (1074), though both Pope Alexander II and St. Gregory VII treated him with marked consideration. His principal opponents If were Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini adversus Berengarium Turonensem), Durandus of Troarn, Guitmundus of Aversa, and Hugh of Langres. Although it cannot be said that Berengarius found many adherents during his lifetime, yet his heresy did not die with him. It was maintained by Wyclif (Trialog, IV, 6, 10) and Luther (Walch, XX 1228), and is the view of the High Church party among the Anglicans at the present time. Besides the councils above-mentioned, it was condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Constance, (1418 — "The substance of the material bread and in like manner the substance of the material wine remain in the Sacrament of the altar", and the first of the condemned propositions of Wyclif), and the Council of Trent (1551).

Berengarius and his modern followers have appealed chiefly to reason and the Fathers in support of their opinions. That Transubstantiation is not contrary to reason, and was at least implicitly taught by the Fathers, is shown in the article TRANSUBSTANTIATION. In the discussions of the Father about the two natures in the one Person the analogy between the Incarnation and the Eucharist was frequently referred to, this led to the expression of views favoring Impanation. But after the definitive victory of St. Cyril's doctrine, the analogy was seen to be deceptive. (See Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire, etc., 2nd series, p. 319 sqq.) The great Schoolmen unanimously rejected Consubstantiation, but they differed in their reasons for doing so. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure, maintained that the words, "This is my body", disproved it; while Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and Pierre d'Ailly declared that it was not inconsistent with Scripture, and could only be disproved by the authority of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church (Turmel, Hist. de la théol. posit., I, 313 sqq.). This line of argument has been a stumbling block to Anglican writers, who have quoted some of the Schoolmen in support of their erroneous opinions on the Eucharist; e.g. Pusey, "The Doctrine of the Real Presence" (1855).
[/indent]