I suggest we stop feeding the troll Mark
It is clear that nothing we say, scripture says, or early church says will make any difference to TruthT
No troll here, the truth has been provided by Mark, read it 9th-13th century doctrine, no ECF'S as you claimed.
Its all the same doctrine, just change the name as you previously stated.
Developed between the 9th-13th century
"Aristotelian Metaphysics Was Accepted"
Wikipedia: The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Is a term used in Christian theology to express the doctrine that Jesus is
really or
substantially present in the Eucharist, not merely symbolically or metaphorically.
There are a number of different views in the understanding of the meaning of the term "reality" in this context among contemporary Christian confessions which accept it, including the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Methodism.[1][2] These differences correspond to literal or figurative interpretations of Christ's Words of Institution, as well as questions related to the concept of realism in the context of the Platonic substance and accident. Efforts at mutual understanding of the range of beliefs by these Churches led in the 1980s to consultations on
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry through the World Council of Churches.
By contrast, the doctrine is rejected by Anabaptists.
History
Eucharistic theology as a branch of Christian theology developed during the medieval period; before that, during the early medieval period theological disputes had focussed mostly on questions of Christology.
An early debate on the question took place in the 9th century, after Charles the Bald had posed the question if the body and blood of Christ were to be a mystery of faith, or if they were truly present (
in mysterio fiat an in veritate). Contrary positions were taken by Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus. Ratramnus held that the body of Christ was present spiritually (
spiritualiter) but not physically (
corporaliter), while Paschasius emphasized the true presence of the body of Christ. The dispute was resolved by Paschasius in a letter to Frudiger, in which he clarified his position to the effect that the true nature of the sacramental body of Christ is spiritual, so that the true presence of Christ's body is necessarily spiritual and not physical in nature, so that its presence in the Eucharist is
real and
symbolic at the same time.[3]
The question of the nature of the Eucharist became virulent for the second time in the Western Church in the 11th century, when Berengar of Tours denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic presence. This caused a controversy which led to the explicit clarification of the doctrine of the Eucharist.[4]In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council used the word
transubstantiated in its profession of faith, when speaking of the change that takes place in the Eucharist.
It was only later in the 13th century that Aristotelian metaphysics was accepted and a philosophical elaboration in line with that metaphysics was developed, which found classic formulation in the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas.[5] Scholasticism cast Christian theology in the terms of Aristotelianism. It is important to understand that the terms
real and
substance in
real presence and
transubstantiation are to be understood within the framework of Aristotelian substance theory, and not in the now-current meaning of referring to the physical or material. Medieval philosophers who used Aristotelian concepts frequently distinguished between substantial forms and accidental forms. For Aristotle, a "substance" (
ousia) is an individual thing, which may possess accidental forms as non-essential properties.
During the later medieval period, the question was debated within the Western Church. Following the Protestant Reformation, it became a central topic of division between the various emerging confessions. The Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, known as "the Sacramental Union", was formulated in the Augsburg Confession of 1530. Luther decidedly supported the doctrine, publishing
The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics in 1526. Thus, the main theological division in this question, turned out to be not between Catholicism and Protestantism, but within Protestantism, especially between Luther and Zwingli, who discussed the question at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529 but who failed to come to an agreement. Zwingli's view became associated with the term Memorialism, suggesting an understanding of the Eucharist held purely "in memory of" Christ. While this accurately describes the position of the Anabaptists and derived traditions, it is not the position held by Zwingli himself, who affirmed that Christ is
truly (in substance), though not
naturally (physically) present in the sacrament.[6]
The Council of Trent, held 1545–1563 in reaction to the Protestant Reformation and initiating the Catholic Counter-Reformation, promulgated the view of the real presence in which the "change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, of the whole substance (
substantia) of the wine into the blood [of Christ], only the appearances (
species) remaining; which change the Catholic Church most fitly calls Transubstantiation."[7]
Eastern Orthodoxy did not become involved in the dispute prior to the 17th century. It became virulent in 1629, when Cyril Lucaris denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, using the Greek translation
metousiosis for the concept. To counter the teaching of Lucaris, Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kiev drew up in Latin an Orthodox Confession in defense of transubstantiation. This Confession was approved by all the Greek-speaking Patriarchs (those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) in 1643, and again by the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem (also referred to as the Council of Bethlehem).
