What Faiths believe in Transubstantiation?

[socalscout]

Anyone know?

[catholicflower]

the orthodox churches believe in it, but i think that is it.

[socalscout]

[quote name='catholicflower' date='Mar 7 2005, 06:36 PM'] the orthodox churches believe in it, but i think that is it. [/quote]
Thanks CF. I did hear that some Protestant ones believe in it but that it is temporary. I guess that means that after the Service it goes back to being just bread. I do not know if that is true.

[theculturewarrior]

Transubstantiation is a uniquely Catholic doctrine, although I hear it is an allowable opinion in the Eastern Churches.

It is to be distinguished from belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the what doctrine, as opposed to transubstantiation's how doctrine. Many Churches believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

[drewmeister2]

TCW is right, only Catholics believe in it, the Orthodox reject it, as Transubstantiation was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='drewmeister2' date='Mar 7 2005, 09:05 PM'] TCW is right, only Catholics believe in it, the Orthodox reject it, as Transubstantiation was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. [/quote]
But did Catholics believe in it [b]before[/b] St. Thomas Aquinas?

[catholicflower]

oh i do apologize. I must have been given wrong information. I hope you can forgive me

[Benedict]

[quote name='drewmeister2' date='Mar 7 2005, 07:05 PM'] TCW is right, only Catholics believe in it, the Orthodox reject it, as Transubstantiation was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. [/quote]
Actually, the Orthodox reject it because they believe the "how" of the Real Presence is a holy mystery that has not been revealed to men. We know that the bread and wine are changed by the Holy Spirit into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord but not the mechanism by which this change is accomplished.

At least, that is what I have garnered.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Mar 7 2005, 09:33 PM'] But did Catholics believe in it [b]before[/b] St. Thomas Aquinas? [/quote]
On Real Presence at the Eucharist Table

And the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? - 1 Cor. 10:16

You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to you. But to us you freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through your Servant. - Didache (around 100AD)

Breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, so that we should live forever in Jesus Christ - Ignatius (105AD)

I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life - which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...And I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. - Ignatius (105AD)

We do not receive these as common bread and common drink. Rather, Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation. So, likewise, we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. - Justin Martyr (160 AD)

But if [the flesh] indeed does not obtain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. - Irenaeus (180 AD)

The vine produces wine, as the Word produces blood. And both of them drink health to men: wine for the body; blood for the spirit. - Clement of Alexandria (195 AD)

He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, affirmed the reality of His body. - Tertullian (207 AD)

We also eat the bread presented to us. And this bread becomes by prayer, a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. - Origen (248 AD)

They drink the cup of Christ's blood daily, for the reason that they themselves also be able to shed their blood for Christ. - Cyprian (250 AD)

Now we, as often as we receive the sacramental elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and Blood, 'do until the Lord's Death" - Abrose of Milan (340 AD)

The Savior also, since He was changing the typical for the spiritual, promised them that they should no longer eat the flesh of a lamb, but His own, saying, 'Take, eat and drink; this is My body, and My blood. When we are thus nourished by these things, we also, my beloved, shall truly keep the feast of the Passover. - Athanasius (295 AD)

In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. 'He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.' This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, doubtless neither eateth His flesh nor drinketh His blood, although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth, but rather doth he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, ahs presumed to come to the sacrament of Christ. - Augustine (354 AD)

It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him. - John Chrysostom (344 AD)

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm pretty sure that the Anglicans believe in the real presence, not just Catholic Church and orthodox.

And since it was vaquely mentioned, I thought I'd clarify that Lutherns believe in consubstantiation. I think that means something like half of it's Jesus and half of it's not. Either that, or Jesus is simply present spiritually and the bread stays bread. I think it's the former.

[argent_paladin]

1. Real Presence and Transubstantiation are two different things. Transubstantiation is the Catholic understanding of how the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ. Only Catholics understand it in exactly this way. However, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, some Anglicans and some Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. Henry VIII and Martin Luther both firmly believed in the Real Presence.

[Myles Domini]

Transubstantiation is believed by both Catholics and Orthodox. The Orthodox confirmed this when they called an extradorinary synod in Jerusalem in the 17th century to deal with the implications of the Council of Trent i.e. the final and definitive definition that there are 7 sacraments, which prior to then had never been formally taken as a given. The Easterns use the Greek equivalent 'Metamorphasis' to Transubstantation to explain the change and although they shy away from scholastic terminology for fear of Latinisation--since the 20th century there has been a reaction against Orthodox Scholastics like Peter Moghila--the doctrines are exactly the same.

No such agreement arises outside of Apostolic Christianity. All other ecclesiastical communions do not believe in the real prescence in its fullness. Anglicanism has no unified definition as some has suggested and cannot because of the principle of Sola Scriptura. Certain very high Church Anglicans might well believe in it however the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church would argue that their ordinations are invalid because of the formulae in the rubrics and thus their ministers cannot act in persona Christi. Lutherans indeed believe in consubstantion, at least on paper, still this is not the real prescence in its fullness since in consubstantion the elements of bread and wine are still present in the hosts. However, transubstantion maintains that there is no bread and wine left and that only the form of bread and wine remains whereas the substance is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus the Lord.

[Matt Black]

Some comments to add to what has already been excellently posted.

The Orthodox, while fully believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, tend to shy away from full-blown transubstantiation,as this (a) detracts as they see it from the mystery of the Sacrament and (b) smacks of Western/ Latin rationalism

Whilst transubstantiation speaks of the elements being transformed so that they are no longer bread and wine, consubstantiation teaches that they are added to by the Divine Presence ie: that they are still bread and wine but [i]plus[/i] Jesus

Yours in Christ

Matt

[jasJis]

Isn't it amazing that as denominations devolve away from the original Church, belief in the Real Presence diminishes. It's exactly relates to distancing themselves away from Christ in both belief in the Real Presence and belief in the Holy Spirit always abiding in the Church as Christ established. That is why the Catholic Church is firm about maintaining the teachings about the REal Presence and being strict about non-Catholic Christians receiving the Eucharist under false or limited understanding of what they really are receiving. The Church wants to do nothing that perpetuates being distance from Jesus.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:01 AM'] And since it was vaquely mentioned, I thought I'd clarify that Lutherns believe in consubstantiation. I think that means something like half of it's Jesus and half of it's not. Either that, or Jesus is simply present spiritually and the bread stays bread. I think it's the former. [/quote]
It is stated that Jesus is in, on, and under the host, but the host remains bread and wine. While he is 'really' present at their Eucharistic meal, so to say, the elements are not changed. It's rather goofy if you think about it.