Transubstantiation And The Early Church

[linate]

 

what is the best way to approach these sorts of arguments below?

 

i realize some of the strongest points are argued to be 1. folks like augustian could be argued to also be a literalist 2. figure and sign are uses that even literalists would use to describe the underlying situation 3. the statistical majority of people were overwhelmingly slash significantly literalists 4. it wasn't until later when the dissensions arose that the literal interpretation was much contested, which indicates it was not open to ideas earlier. 

 

in response to these points.though.

1. isn't it more like augustian is showing that his literal sounding talk is figurative more than his figurative is literal? that is, particularly referencing the bondage points, and the 'this is symbolism' point.

2. this is a pretty good point for Catholics, the figure and sign thing. but what makes one so sure, when the other points here cast as much doubt as they do on the situation?

3 and 4 , how can it be better demonstrated empirically statistically and preferably geographically that it was "overwhelmingly" or at least "significantly" the predominant view in the early church? this would address both the consensus issue then, and over time if it later arose to be open to ideas.

i would hate for a writer to find a few bad apples, and some taken out of context figure and sign quotes slash apples, and act as if a consensus wasn't then, when it really was.

 

 

 

================================

 

Church Fathers on Transubstantiation

Question: The early church fathers believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, as the following quotations confirm.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. (Justin Martyr, First Apology).

That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Answer: Some church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual. Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215. Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus' work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.

It is misleading to speak about “real presence” as if the term is equivalent to “transubstantiation.” Christians, who consider the bread and wine as strictly symbolical, also believe in the real presence of the Lord among them. Jesus said: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Surely Christ is present in the congregation of His people, as He promises, especially during the celebration of the Supper. His presence is real even though it is spiritual and not carnal.

The Roman Catholic doctrine is defined in the second canon of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

In other words, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and in the process the bread and wine cease to exist, except in appearance. The ‘substance’ of the bread and wine do not remain.

Catholic websites list quotations from the Fathers which supposedly prove the Catholic doctrine. When read superficially and out of context they seem to give clear evidence in favour of transubstantiation. In fact, they do not! I suggest we take as second look at the three quotations above (which are representative of many similar quotations), while keeping in mind Augustine’s advice “to guard us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal.” Augustine refers to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist to illustrate this important principle:

“…our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many (Old Testament rites), and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3).

It is wrong to interpret literal speech figuratively; it is equally wrong to interpret metaphorical speech literally. So, let’s see, did the early Fathers believe in transubstantiation, namely the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ?

Ignatius

Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection. Ignatius wrote:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.

The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.

We do not have to take the phrase "the Eucharist is the flesh" in a literalistic manner. As in everyday speech, as well as in the Bible, it could simply mean that the Eucharist represents the flesh of Christ. To illustrate, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (A.D. 151) writes:

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was make incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66).

“The change of which our body and flesh are nourished” is not a reference to transubstantiation. According to Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).

Justin Martyn calls the Eucharistic bread and wine "the flesh and the blood" of Jesus. Justin believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. However Justin also believed that the bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine. He speaks of their partaking "of the bread and wine" over which thanksgiving was pronounced. Elsewhere Justin calls the consecrated elements “bread” and “the cup.” They are the flesh and blood of Christ insofar that they are given in remembrance of his incarnation and blood.

Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).

Clearly, while Justin believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he also believed that the elements remained bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ. Therefore Justin Martyr's view on the Eucharist is dissimilar from the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, and as such he is anathemized by the Roman Church.

Augustine

Catholic authors often misuse Augustine’s figurative writings to support the doctrine of transubstantiation. The following example is a case in point:

That bread, which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That's how he explained the sacrament of the Lord's Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Augustine believed that in a sense the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. “The bread…is the body of Christ…that cup…is the blood of Christ.” In what sense is he speaking? Is the substance of the bread changed into the body of Christ? Or is bread the body of Christ in a symbolic sense? We can readily discover the answer to this all important question.

First, looking at the context, it is clear that Augustine is using figurative language. Just as he asserts that the bread is the body of Christ, he is equally emphatic that Christians are one loaf, one body.Clearly, he means that the one Eucharistic loaf represents the unity among believers. Similarly, “by means of these things” - the bread and the cup - the Lord presents his people with his body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are the figure or sign of Christ, as Augustine asserts explicitly elsewhere in his writings:

• The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant).

• He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3).

• [The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).

The Eucharist is the figure of the body and blood of Jesus. Since the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, it is acceptable to call them His body and His blood. The bread resembles the body; therefore it is called the body even though it is not the reality it represents. That is perfectly normal in figurative language.

Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ. The mistake of the modern Catholic Church is to confuse the sign with the reality it represents.

Augustine rightly warns that "to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage" (On Christian Doctrine 3,9). Augustine is here referring to the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. Thus, to confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine a mark of weakness and bondage.

 

 

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Church Fathers on the Eucharistic Elements

Question: If God can become man, would it be so impossible that he could make himself present in bread and wine. His Church has believed it since the time of Christ. Why did somebody come along centuries later and try to tell people that He only meant it symbolically, and on what authority did they change what the Church has always believed?

Answer: From the Catholic point of view, it is incorrect to say that Christ is “present in bread and wine.” That’s more like the concept of consubstantiation (the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist) rather that the Catholictransubstantiation (the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ).

It is simply not true that the church “always believed” the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Please study the following quotations; they prove that some Church Fathers considered the Eucharist as the figure, sign, symbol and likeness of the body and blood of Christ.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)

Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii.)

For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)

For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. (Theodoret, Dialogue II, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)

For the Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body. (Augustine, Against Adimant.)

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III.)

He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples thefigure of His Body and Blood. (Augustine, on Psalm 3.)

We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means ofsymbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica.)

To You we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you, unto the remission of sins.” (Anaphora, quoted in Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, II, p 132.)

Offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles.)

Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries. (Pope Gelasius, de Duabus Naturis).

Thus some influential Church Fathers considered the bread and wine as sacred symbols of the body and blood of Jesus. Others did not. The view of other Fathers (Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, etc) were similar to, and later developed into, the doctrine of transubstantiation. There wasn’t a unanimous understanding among the Fathers on the nature of the eucharistic elements.

It is tragic that the Supper which Christ instituted as a memorial for His people became the occasion for bitter controversy, persecution and schisms. The focus is all wrong. Our concern should not be the bread and wine as such, but what they signify, namely Christ, whose body was crucified for us and whose blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Edited October 15, 2013 by linate

[Apotheoun]

It depends upon what you mean by the word "physical." Is Christ physically present in the Eucharist? Is that even Catholic teaching today? The Church Fathers tend to use the Greek word "physis" to mean "natural." Would Christ's presence in the Eucharist be described as natural? Is Christ's presence in the Eucharist a natural mode of existence, or is it a supernatural mode of being?

[dairygirl4u2c]

....

Edited October 15, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[linate]

i don't think augustine would argue against a real true understanding of flesh and blood, cause no one would take that seriously to begin with. if he's going to say to take it literally is a sign of bondage, he's probably talking about it in the sense catholics believe. it'd be hard for me to think he'd be entertaining anything else

[linate]

i also don't see the natural v supernatural question really answering the figurative v literal question very well. it was called natural. it could also be called supernatural, and that would to anyone be preferable, but that doesn't really bare to what to make of the literal question. 

[Apotheoun]

St. Augustine is rather unique among the Fathers, and his views were not shared in the East. In fact, none of Augustine's writings were even translated into Greek until the 14th century. Augustine does have a theory of signs that is closer to the modern notion, but in spite of that he still does say things in his homilies that are more "literalist" than in some of his more technical treatises (e.g., speaking about Christ carrying Himself in His own hands, etc.). 

 

 

[Apotheoun]

i also don't see the natural v supernatural question really answering the figurative v literal question very well. it was called natural. it could also be called supernatural, and that would to anyone be preferable, but that doesn't really bare to what to make of the literal question. 

Something can be supernatural and yet literal. Can the Eucharist be the very body and blood of Christ supernaturally present through the Church's anaphora, and the presence be thought of as literal? Yeah. Adolph Von Harnack, more than a century ago, spoke about the Eucharist as a "symbol" but differentiated the ancient understanding of a symbol from that as understood in his own time.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

 

It is tragic that the Supper which Christ instituted as a memorial for His people became the occasion for bitter controversy, persecution and schisms. The focus is all wrong. Our concern should not be the bread and wine as such, but what they signify, namely Christ, whose body was crucified for us and whose blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.

I agree that the focus should be upon Christ, but Christ's presence in the memorial is made manifest in the Eucharistic elements that we are supposed to participate in through the reception of holy communion. In the East we simply say that the consecrated elements are Christ, and we do not concern ourselves with trying to define how the mystery works.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[linate]

for a catholic point, i wouldnt be surprised if the 'figurative' sounding quotes are close to the extent of what was found, or could be found, for figurativeness. if that was the case, that would underscore a very weak argument indeed. both cause the findings are weak, and because surely some of those quotes are just coming from a catholic point of view, namely there's literal underlying eucharist with symbols involved. 

 

"In the East we simply say that the consecrated elements are Christ, and we do not concern ourselves with trying to define how the mystery works."

 

very interesting. would you say then that the east believes in transubstantiation like the catholic church does? also, does that leave open what it means to have the "elements are Christ". could it almost be argued somewhat of a figure, or figurative in the east, as far as the mystery is concerned?

[linate]

looking up transubstantiation on wikipedia i did find 

 

"The Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Church of the East have sometimes used the term "transubstantiation" (metousiosis); however, terms such as "divine mystery", "trans-elementation" (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis), "re-ordination" (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis), or simply "change" (μεταβολή) are more common among them and they consider the change from bread and wine to flesh and blood a "Mystery"."

 

but i also found...

"The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that in a valid Divine Liturgy bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "Mystery," something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer not to elaborate upon the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to start during the Liturgy of Preparation and be completed during the Epiklesis. However, there are official church documents that speak of a "change" (in Greek Î¼ÎµÏ„αβολή) or "metousiosis" (μετουσίωσις) of the bread and wine. "Μετ-ουσί-ωσις" (met-ousi-osis) is the Greek word used to represent the Latin word "trans-substanti-atio",^[84][85] as Greek "μετα-μόρφ-ωσις" (meta-morph-osis) corresponds to Latin "trans-figur-atio". Examples of official documents of the Eastern Orthodox Church that use the term "μετουσίωσις" or "transubstantiation" are the Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (question 340) and the declaration by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672:

................

It should be noted, that the way in which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ has never been dogmatically defined by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, St Theodore the Studite writes in his treatise On the Holy Icons: "for we confess that the faithful receive the very body and blood of Christ, according to the voice of God himself."^[87] This was a refutation of the iconoclasts, who insisted that the eucharist was the only true icon of Christ. Thus, it can be argued that by being part of the docmatic "horos" against the iconoclast heresy, the teaching on the "real presence" of Christ in the eucharist is indeed a dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church."

Edited October 15, 2013 by linate

[linate]

thinking about it a metaphysical sense, i do like the idea of keeping it mystery. but i also like the catholic twist, cause it says "we receive all of God, the trinity in full, father, son, and holy spirit". the protestant way almost says we receive the holy spirit only. 

[Apotheoun]

very interesting. would you say then that the east believes in transubstantiation like the catholic church does? also, does that leave open what it means to have the "elements are Christ". could it almost be argued somewhat of a figure, or figurative in the east, as far as the mystery is concerned?

No, because "transubstantiation" is seen as a type of speculative theory. Easterner's (most at least) would probably not condemned the notion, but they also would not embrace it. 

 

As far as Eastern Christians holding a figurative view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is concerned, I would not describe the Eastern approach as figurative, because we venerate the unconsecrated elements as an icon of Christ as they are processed through the doors of the iconostasis and are presented upon the altar, but once they are consecrated through the Eucharistic anaphora we adore the elements as Christ Himself. As the priest says, when holding up the consecrated elements to the faithful, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord: God the Lord has revealed Himself to us." The Eucharist is a mystical revelation of Christ's presence among His people. It is a parousia in anticipation of the parousia at the end of time.

[Apotheoun]

looking up transubstantiation on wikipedia i did find 

 

"The Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Church of the East have sometimes used the term "transubstantiation" (metousiosis); however, terms such as "divine mystery", "trans-elementation" (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis), "re-ordination" (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis), or simply "change" (μεταβολή) are more common among them and they consider the change from bread and wine to flesh and blood a "Mystery"."

The word "change" is most common word used in the East. All other terms would be theologoumena, i.e., speculative opinions.

[Apotheoun]

It should be noted, that the way in which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ has never been dogmatically defined by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, St Theodore the Studite writes in his treatise On the Holy Icons: "for we confess that the faithful receive the very body and blood of Christ, according to the voice of God himself." This was a refutation of the iconoclasts, who insisted that the eucharist was the only true icon of Christ. Thus, it can be argued that by being part of the docmatic "horos" against the iconoclast heresy, the teaching on the "real presence" of Christ in the eucharist is indeed a dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church."

Yes. The Iconoclastic heretics held that the Eucharist was the only acceptable icon of Christ, but the response of St. Theodore (and St. John Damascene) was that the Eucharist is not an icon; instead, it is Christ Himself personally present to His people through the Eucharistic elements.

 

That is why I pointed out in my previous post that the unconsecrated elements are an icon of Christ, while the consecrated elements simply are Christ.

[linate]

"thinking about it a metaphysical sense, i do like the idea of keeping it mystery. but i also like the catholic twist, cause it says "we receive all of God, the trinity in full, father, son, and holy spirit". the protestant way almost says we receive the holy spirit only. 

 

though taking this a step further. if one receives the holy spirit, they receive God. it could be argued. to receive the body and blood, is to receive God. how does one literally receive the father other than by logical implication?

i'm sure all this mumbo jumbo is why the orthodox like to keep it a mystery. and maybe this is how one could say the elements "are Christ" but choose not to elaborate into even 'literal body and blood', cause of all this rough logic. as an orthodox would say, why speculate when we cannot arrive at this stuff by reason to begin with. but must rely on revelation?