History Of Transubstantiation

[mulls]

since the Catholic church claims to be the first and only Apostolic church, can anyone give me a reference to when the first transubstantiation occured? Where did it happen, who performed it, and what did whoever did it say to make it happen?

If your answer is that the Last Supper was the first transubstantiation, then please give me the second occurence. I want to be able to see a parallel of how the Apostles or church fathers or whoever did it the first time to how the priests do it today.

[hyperdulia again]

the priests don't do it god does.

i'm not sure if it's possible to answer what you're asking, do you want quotes from the Church Fathers?

Edited July 22, 2003 by hyperdulia again

[MC Just]

Here's something that may help

JESUS GIVES HIMSELF TO US:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

By Fr. Ray Ryland

One of the post-communion prayers in the Eucharistic liturgy makes this petition: “Lord, by our sharing in the mystery of this Eucharist, let your saving love grow within us. Grant this through Christ our Lord.” Notice the italicized words. We pray and say things like this so often in our liturgy we tend to take them for granted. Take another and closer look at what Jesus Christ does in this great mystery of the Eucharist.

Start With the Incarnation

Ponder these astounding words from the prologue to the Fourth Gospel: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth...” (John 1:1, 14a) Sacred scripture is telling us that Almighty God has become part of the material world. And all for the purpose of working out our salvation through the human nature (body as well a soul) of his divine Son.

Now that Christ has been raised in glory, through his transfigured human nature God mediates to us the salvation Christ has won for us. God acts on us I an intimate, person-to-person way. Our contact with God is a spiritual reality made possible by god’s grace and by our response to that grace in faith. And so for all persons who have faith in Christ, he makes himself spiritually available to them.

Bur in his infinite love for us, Jesus Christ has chosen to do far more than be simply spiritually available.

In the Eucharist, Jesus Christ Gives Us Direct Contact

With His Human Nature

Think of your senses: Hearing, seeing, smelling, touching, tasting. You can hear or see or smell something, but our sense of hearing or seeing or smelling is detached from its object. You are not in direct physical contact with what you hear or see or smell.

Touching is different. We come into direct contact with something by putting our fingers or our hand on that object. Tasting is a form of touching, but with a very great difference. Tasting – eating – actually brings about a union between ourselves and the object of our tasting (eating). What we eat literally becomes part of us.

Now this is deeply significant: the central act of the Catholic religion is an act of feeding on particular food. Jesus wants us to be united with him through faith, of course. But through his Church he has provided for much more intimate contact with himself. He has given us food – the Eucharist – through which he gives us his very self. At the Last Supper he said of the elements, “this is my body,” “this is my blood.” (Matt. 26:26-28).

Jesus Christ gives us himself under forms of bread and wine. In all the other sacraments, Jesus uses physical means through which he gives us his grace: the water of baptism, the oil of the anointing, and so. But in the Eucharist, the physical means Jesus uses themselves become Jesus Christ himself.

Only God himself could fully explain the miracle of the Eucharist, but the Holy Spirit enables his Church to describe the miracle, in her doctrine of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation

To describe what happens in the Eucharistic action, the Church uses two basic concepts. The first is “substance”: the inner essence of something: what it really is at the core of its being. The second is “accidents” (or we might use another word, “appearances”): the qualities of a thing which we can experience by one or more of our senses.

As an example of “accidents,” take a book. You can see its shape, its weight, its color. You might even imitate a toddler and tear out a page and chew on it to test its flavor. What you can see or feel or taste are the “accidents,” the “appearances” of the book. But the essence of this object if book.

In the Eucharist, the appearances of the bread and wine remain unchanged. The essence of the bread and wine is totally changed. Their essence is changed into the very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church calls this change “transubstantiation.” The change is both miraculous and unique.

We human beings can change both the inner essence (“the substance”) of something and its appearances (“the accidents”). By cooking, we can change wheat into bread. IN its essence it is no longer what; it is bread. It no longer looks like what: the appearances (“the accidents”) are changed.

We human beings can change the appearances of something without changing the substance. We can freeze water so that it no longer looks like water, but it’s still water. We can transform water into steam so that it no longer looks like water, but it’s still water.

But here is something impossible for us: we can never change the inner essence (the “substance”) of something without changing its appearances (the “accidents”). Only God can do that. That’s exactly what he does in the consecration of the Eucharist. God changes the substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ. But the accidents, the appearances of bread and wine remain unchanged.

Here is the miracle, enacted by God at every Catholic altar. The Blessed Sacrament does not merely give us a spiritual presence of our Lord. This Sacrament gives us the actual flesh and blood of the risen Christ to be our food, to become literally part of us.

Two Articles of Faith Regarding Our Lord’s Eucharistic Presence

First of all, the Church teaches that the bodily presence of the risen and ascended Christ is in heaven, where “he is seated at the right hand of the Father.” Over 1500 years ago Pope Leo the Great proclaimed, “The Son of God entered into the lowliness of this world, descending from his heavenly throne yet not leaving the glory of the Father.” While the Eternal Word was on earth in his humanity – being born of a virgin, teaching, preaching, healing, suffering and dying on the Cross – the Eternal Word in his divinity was at the same time governing the universe with the other Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The Church also teaches that Jesus Christ – Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity – is truly present in the Eucharist. Jesus Christ is present in each of the many hosts in a single ciborium. One ciborium may contain many hosts, but that ciborium will contain only one bodily presence of Christ. Jesus Christ is present in all the cibnoria in all the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in the entire world. Jesus Christ is fully and completely bodily present in each part of each host. When the host is broken, Jesus Christ is fully present in each part of the host, in each visible particle of the host. No matter how many hosts there re, entire or broken, in all of them there is only on bodily presence of the Lord.

How Can We Reconcile These Two Truths?

The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is now “seated at the right hand of the Father” in heaven. The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is now present in the Eucharist, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. How can this be?

Start with the fact that all things are subject to Christ at this moment and until the end of time. “’All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’” (Matt. 28:18)

“For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet…For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” (1 Cor. 15:25, 27) “…in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Col. 1:16-17)

Jesus Christ directs all things, all persons, without limiting their freedom of choice, shaping the future Kingdom of God. The way in which he exercises his dominion varies according to the nature of his creatures, whether human or animal or inanimate.

At the consecration in the liturgy, through the power of his Spirit, Christ the King directly touches the substance (the inner essence) of these elements of bread and wine. He touches the substance of these elements in such a way that he pulls them toward himself. He subjects them to himself.

A miraculous change occurs which we call “transubstantiation.” But note: the King of Glory does not descend in order to “enter” the bread and wine. No, instead of his coming down, he draws the essence of the elements to where he is, at the right hand of the Father. The risen Lord draws the inner reality of the bread and wine in all celebrations of the Mass unto himself and indeed into himself. Thus he maintains his own bodily unity.

In other words, Jesus Christ himself is not changed into the essence of the elements of bread and wine. Rather, the essence of those elements is changed into him.

Consider the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood on a Catholic altar. We can see the Hosts being distributed and the Precious Blood being consumed. What we see happening to the Hosts and the Precious Blood happens not to the substance of those elements, but to the accidents, the appearances. It is the accidents that we see consecrated, handled, broken, multiplied in many ciboria on many altars in churches around the world. The substance of all the Hosts, all the Precious Blood, in all the world is the one Body and Blood Soul and divinity, of the one risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Always remember: Jesus Christ does not come down from heaven to enter the substance of these elements. Jesus Christ in heaven changes the substance of these elements into himself, while leaving their appearances unchanged. That is the miracle of transubstantiation.

Conclusion

In any non-Catholic church, you can hear Jesus Christ proclaimed, often quite powerfully. In any non-Catholic church, you can be invited to commit your life to Jesus Christ. In almost any non-Catholic church you will find warm human fellowship. All of these, of course, you should find in any Catholic church.

But in no non-Catholic church (excepting the Eastern Orthodox) can you receive Jesus Christ himself, Body and Blood, Soul and divinity. Because of the lack of apostolic orders for their ministers, none of the non-Catholic communion services is the Eucharist. Therefore, in no no-Catholic church can you be literally united with Jesus Christ.

I shall never forget the exclamation of a theologian, himself a convert, as he thought about the Eucharist and the priesthood: “that man,” he said in a hushed tone, speaking of his priest, “can put God in my mouth!”

This most precious of privileges, this most intimate of all person-to-Person unions, is available to you only in Christ’s one true Church. Rejoice! And do something else. Go about your life, carrying out your individual apostolate, with the words of Jesus ringing in your ears: “From him who has been given much, much will be expected.”

[MC Just]

Here's a site with some good info

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a007.html

Q. The Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian, and the Nicene do not mention transubstantiation. There is no record of such a doctrine until 1564 when Pius IV put it into his creed. Are we to believe the early Christians, or the doctrine of a thousand years later? ("Radio Replies")

A. The doctrine is not in the three Creeds you mention. But they do not contain the whole of Christian doctrine. They are partial statements insisting upon certain doctrines against special errors of those times. It is true that Pius IV included the doctrine in his profession of faith, but you are wrong when you say that there was no mention of the doctrine until then. In 1551, 13 years earlier, the Council of Trent taught the doctrine explicitly. In 1274, 290 years earlier, the 2nd Council of Lyons insisted upon the admission of transubstantiation by the Greeks as a condition of return to the Catholic Church. In 1215, 349 years earlier, the 4th Lateran Council consecrated the word Transubstantiation as expressing correctly the Christian doctrine of Christ's real presence by conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of His Body. In 1079, 500 years earlier, Berengarius declared in his retraction, "I acknowledge that the bread is substantially changed into the substance of Christ's Body." Everybody who possessed the true Christian faith, until this year, 1079, believed in the substantial change, and there was no need to insist upon the word, since no one denied the nature of the change. In the 4th century all the great Fathers and writers admitted that by consecration bread was changed into Our Lord's very Body. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died about 110 AD, wrote, "Heretics abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess the Eucharist to be that very Flesh of Jesus Christ which suffered for us." And that doctrine is all that is expressed by transubstantiation. At the Last Supper Christ said,"This is My Body which is given for you." (10) Now He either gave them His Body or He did not. But He gave them His Body, for we dare not say, "Lord although you say, 'This is My Body,' it is certainly not Your Body." However it was not His Body according to appearances and visible qualities, and it could have been His Body only according to substance. Therefore Our Lord first taught this doctrine of substantial change at least implicitly.

Edited July 22, 2003 by Mc-Just†

[mulls]

"I shall never forget the exclamation of a theologian, himself a convert, as he thought about the Eucharist and the priesthood:' “that man,” he said in a hushed tone, speaking of his priest, “can put God in my mouth!'”

well, that's interesting

[hyperdulia again]

interesting and true

[MC Just]

Scripture and Tradition Are Clear On Transubstantiation

When Jesus told his disciples that "my flesh is real food and my blood real drink" (Jn. 6:55), his disciples took Him literally and said: "This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?" (Jn. 6:60). Then St. John's Gospel reports: "Jesus was fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in protest at what he had said" (Jn. 6:61). John then states that "From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer. Jesus then said to the Twelve, 'Do you want to leave me too?"' (Jn. 6:66-67). The Twelve (except for Judas) stayed with Jesus because they trusted his words (Jn. 6:69-71).

Now, "Jesus was fully aware" that the departing disciples understood his teaching literally. Obviously, if Jesus had only meant that they would eat his Body and drink his Blood figuratively or symbolically, He would have said so before they walked away. Since He did not, He meant his words literally and, of course, not sensibly or canibalistically, but miraculously!

Some people become confused by what Jesus said after the disciples complained that "This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously'?" Jesus states: "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words I spoke to you are spirit and life" (Jn. 6:63). They mistakenly think that this is proof that Jesus is saying that He only means that the disciples will eat his flesh and drink his blood spiritually and not literally. But it is illogical that Jesus would say that his flesh is "useless" alter saying 'the flesh of the Son of Man" gives "life" (Jn. 6:53). Rather, Jesus is not talking about his flesh, but about their flesh. Jesus is telling the disciples that they cannot grasp or come to his teaching on the Eucharist by their senses or their "flesh," which is "useless" for this purpose, but only through faith or "spirit".

Now, the fourth century Church Fathers understood that the Eucharist is really Jesus Christ Himself. St. Cyril of Alexandria states: "He said This is my body and this is my blood in a demonstrative fashion, so that you might not judge that what you see is a mere figure."[3] And St. Ambrose of Milan teaches about the Eucharist that "nature itself is changed through the blessing".[4] So, it is quite clear from the fourth century Church Fathers that the Eucharistic consecration "changes" the "nature" of the bread and wine into the "nature" of Jesus Christ and that the Eucharist is not just "a mere figure" of Jesus Christ but "truly" Jesus Christ Himself. This is precisely why St. Augustine states about the Eucharist: "no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so".[5]

This teaching on Christ's Eucharistic Real Presence was not seriously challenged until the eleventh century (after a thousand years!). Then, Berengarius of Tours held that Christ was present in the Eucharist only "as mere sign and symbol" and that after the consecration, "bread must remain".[6] Berengarius stated: "That which is consecrated (the bread) is not able to cease existing materially."[7] St. Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) calls "Berengarius . . . the first deviser of this heresy," that the consecrated Bread and Wine are only a "sign" of Christ's Body and Blood."[8]

St. Thomas also gave a very good reason why bread and wine cannot remain after the consecration: "Because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of "latria"."[9] If bread and wine remained, Catholics would be committing the sin of idolatry by adoring it. So, physical bread and wine do not remain!

Thus, the Council of Trent (1545-1563), in harmony with St. Thomas infallibly taught:

"If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood, the species (appearance) of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema."[10]

Finally, in 196:S, Pope Paul VI taught most clearly that, after the consecration at Mass, "nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species (smell, taste, etc.)" and that Christ is (bodily) present whole and entire in his physical 'reality,' corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place."[11] So, the "physical" thing that remains after the consecration is Jesus Christ and not bread and wine.

[KennC]

The Eucharist has to be the most close and most personal relationship there is, reading through the Lords Prayer in John 17, I believe it is, describes this union quite well I think.

Peace of Christ, Ken

[Jake Huether]

We know for sure, as you pointed out, that the first Transubstantiation was at the Last Supper. The second Transubstantiation was most likely the Sunday after Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on the Apostles and told them, "as the Father has sent me, so I send you".

Evidence for Transubstantiation can also be noted in St. Pauls letter to the Corinthians. I don't have to quote anything for you. I'm sure you know what I'm refering to (if not let me know).

Maybe what you mean is the first "historical" transubstantiation that was documented ouside of the Bible?

In that case I will do a little research. Maybe someone else already has that documented.

[Jake Huether]

A quick yahoo search gets us to 110 AD, St. Justin.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

I'm sure there is others that can be traced earlier.

[Jake Huether]

More good reading...

Leaving work, so until tomorrow.

God bless!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

[INRIWarrior3]

If you want a biblical reference to transubstantiation look at 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. St. Paul clearly makes reference to this teaching, though the tem transubstantiation doesn't arise until Lateran IV in 1215. If you do not recognize, "discern" as Paul says, that this is the body and blood of Christ and still receive the Blessed Sacrament, then you are commiting a mortal sin as the Church teaches. Once again this verse is a clear reference to the Church's teaching of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Christ's Peace, Love, and Knowledge always:

Chadd Christopher

"Warrior" "Christ-bearer"

INRIWarrior3

[ironmonk]

since the Catholic church claims to be the first and only Apostolic church, can anyone give me a reference to when the first transubstantiation occured? Where did it happen, who performed it, and what did whoever did it say to make it happen?

If your answer is that the Last Supper was the first transubstantiation, then please give me the second occurence. I want to be able to see a parallel of how the Apostles or church fathers or whoever did it the first time to how the priests do it today.

The Catholic Church does not need to claim it. History proves it.

Transubutation has been known since the first Christians in 33 AD, the word came to be at a much later date. The concept and definition of the word is older than the Church since it started at Christ's last supper.

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made 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 is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,

the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . 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" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Before proving dogmatically the fact of the substantial change here under consideration, we must first outline its history and nature.

(a) The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the "aptitude of the term" to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept. In a closer logical analysis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and fundamental notion to be that of conversion, which may be defined as "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being". As is immediately evident, conversion (conversio) is something more than mere change (mutatio). Whereas in mere changes one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as, e.g., in the change of day and night, conversion requires two positive extremes, which are related to each other as thing to thing, and must have, besides, such an intimate connection with each other, that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to be only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases to be, as, e.g., in the conversion of water into wine at Cana. A third element is usually required, known as the commune tertium, which, even after conversion has taken place, either physically or at least logically unites one extreme to the other; for in every true conversion the following condition must be fulfilled: "What was formerly A, is now B." A very important question suggests itself as to whether the definition should further postulate the previous non-existence of the last extreme, for it seems strange that an existing terminus a quo, A, should be converted into an already existing terminus ad quem, B. If the act of conversion is not to become a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner newly exist, just as the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. Yet as the disappearance of the latter is not attributable to annihilation properly so called, so there is no need of postulating creation, strictly so called, to explain the former's coming into existence. The idea of conversion is amply realized if the following condition is fulfilled, viz., that a thing which already existed in substance, acquires an altogether new and previously non-existing mode of being. Thus in the resurrection of the dead, the dust of the human bodies will be truly converted into the bodies of the risen by their previously existing souls, just as at death they had been truly converted into corpses by the departure of the souls. This much as regards the general notion of conversion. Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ. Thus, too, the theory of Impanation advocated by Osiander and certain Berengarians, and according to which a hypostatic union is supposed to take place between the substance of the bread and the God-man (impanatio = Deus panis factus), is authoritatively rejected. So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in that of Transubstantiation. It was for this very reason that Pius VI, in his dogmatic Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1794) against the Jansenistic pseudo Synod of Pistoia (1786), protested most vigorously against suppressing this "scholastic question", as the synod had advised pastors to do.

(B) In the mind of the Church, Transubstantiation has been so intimately bound up with the Real Presence, that both dogmas have been handed down together from generation to generation, though we cannot entirely ignore a dogmatico-historical development. The total conversion of the substance of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: "This is my body". These words form, not a theoretical, but a practical proposition, whose essence consists in this, that the objective identity between subject and predicate is effected and verified only after the words have all been uttered, not unlike the pronouncement of a king to a subaltern: "You are a major", or, "You are a captain", which would immediately cause the promotion of the officer to a higher command. When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: "This is my body", the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically deduced from them. The Calvinists, therefore, are perfectly right when they reject the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as a fiction, with no foundation in Scripture. For had Christ intended to assert the coexistence of His Body with the Substance of the bread, He would have expressed a simple identity between hoc and corpus by means of the copula est, but would have resorted to some such expression as: "This bread contains my body", or, "In this bread is my Body." Had He desired to constitute bread the sacramental receptacle of His Body, He would have had to state this expressly, for neither from the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread be made to signify the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: "This is my blood", i.e. the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and hence no longer wine.

Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism. On the other hand, complete clearness on the subject had been attained by writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West. Eventually the West became the classic home of scientific perfection in the difficult doctrine of Transubstantiation. The claims of the learned work of the Anglican Dr. Pusey (The Doctrine of the Real Presence as contained in the Fathers, Oxford, 1855), who denied the cogency of the patristic argument for Transubstantiation, have been met and thoroughly answered by Cardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., Rome, 1887, xiv). The argument from tradition is strikingly confirmed by the ancient liturgies, whose beautiful prayers express the idea of conversion in the clearest manner. Many examples may be found in Renaudot, "Liturgiæ orient." (2nd ed., 1847); Assemani, "Codex liturg." (13 vols., Rome 1749-66); Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium" (2 vols., Würzburg, 1864), Concerning the Adduction Theory of the Scotists and the Production Theory of the Thomists, see Pohle, "Dogmatik" (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908), III, 237 sqq.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

Edited July 23, 2003 by ironmonk

[dUSt]

Mulls,

I took some time to break down a comparison for you.

Matthew 26:26-29

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father."

1 Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Now compare scripture with what the priest says during the Eucharistic prayer at every Catholic mass:

Excerpt: Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you. When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

[Norseman82]

Another thought to ponder. Transubstantiation was not invented in the middle ages, it was just explained. Think of it this way. Newton put forth the law of gravity. Did Newton invent gravity? Before Newton, did apples fall up? No! They always fell down. Gravity existed previously, it's just that Newton explained it. Just so with transubstantiation. It existed since the Last Supper, but it wasn't explained in more detail until about a thousand years later.

Hope this helps.

Edited July 23, 2003 by Norseman82