Who invented transubstantiation?

[RisingSun212]

Who came up with transubstantiation? I think it was Simon the Magician of Acts 8. He liked to perform magic tricks. He also visited Rome.

 

[tz620q]

Who came up with transubstantiation? I think it was Simon the Magician of Acts 8. He liked to perform magic tricks. He also visited Rome.

I don't think you are going to get many takers on this. Since this is a history forum, you would need to provide historical support for your theory that Simon the Magician came up with transubstantiation. That would be very hard to do.

 

[JM]

Brahmans in pagan India taught something similar to transubstantiation.

 

[revanneosl]

Though earlier church fathers had been quite explicit about the real change of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Jesus in their sermons, the earliest Christian theologian to write a lengthy exposition about it was a fellow named Paschasius Radbertus, in his book of instruction for the monks under his care called De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. I'd love to link to an english translation of it, but I can't seem to find one online.

 

[JM]

That's debatable.

 

[revanneosl]

Everything in the history of history is debatable. That's where PhDs come from. But my answer is what you'll learn in a theological seminary.

 

[JM]

That sounds swell.

What's your real name? What seminary did you attend? Are you currently teaching, pastoring or just posting CF?

You must've attended a Jesuit seminary....

 

[abacabb3]

I believe it is pretty clear in the Church Fathers that they all believed in the Real Presence, and they used terms that do not endorse transubstantiation's Aristotelian definitions, but do not deny them either.

Look at Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 22:

"Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?...Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you...Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ"

He could not have been more specific. Sure, the bread and wine look and taste like bread and wine, but be assured, they are really the Body and Blood of Christ.

Cyril also writes:

"Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature."

It appears that Cyril takes the real presence so literally, that he argues that we become partakers of the divine nature by the nutrients of the food being digested and distributed throughout our bodies.

Chrysostom likewise put it very succinctly: "And He Himself drank of it. For lest on hearing this, they should say, What then? Do we drink blood, and eat flesh? And then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended), therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood."

So, I think it is at best an uneducated claim that the early Church did not ascribe to the Real Presence and at worst disingenuous.

HOWEVER, the part that is interestingly absent in all of Chyrsostom's and Cyril's writings on the subject is that the "mystery"/"sacrifice"/"sacrament" forgives sins. Chrysostom makes very clear that its importance is a memorial: "For as Christ in regard to the bread and the cup said, Do this in remembrance of Me, revealing to us the cause of the giving of the Mystery." So, what I would like to know why the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist forgives sins every week when Christ's sacrifices on the cross forgave sins for all time? Why do other Apostolic Churches, such as the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, not teach that the eucharist forgives sins but otherwise is really the flesh and blood of Christ?

 

[JM]

I had to ask for your qualifications reva so I can confirm you as an authority on the subject but until then I'll have to stick with the classes I've taken and the works on church history I've read...and they disagree with what you posted. Let's not forget the earliest record of church history we have, the New Testament, and it doesn't contain any mention of transubstantiation.

So I'm not wasting my time I'll post a few links for the original poster.

Misrepresentation of History - http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-transubstantiation.htm

Sacerdotalism - https://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/sacerdotal-system-rejected/

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[ViaCrucis]

Who came up with transubstantiation? I think it was Simon the Magician of Acts 8. He liked to perform magic tricks. He also visited Rome.

Transubstantiation is a specific view on the Christian doctrine of the Real Presence. As a theological and philosophical approach to the Real Presence Transubstantiation is a product of late medieval Scholasticism.

The Christian doctrine of the Real Presence was "invented" by Jesus Christ when at His Last Supper He took bread and wine and said they were His body and blood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GreekOrthodox]

HOWEVER, the part that is interestingly absent in all of Chyrsostom's and Cyril's writings on the subject is that the "mystery"/"sacrifice"/"sacrament" forgives sins. Chrysostom makes very clear that its importance is a memorial: "For as Christ in regard to the bread and the cup said, Do this in remembrance of Me, revealing to us the cause of the giving of the Mystery." So, what I would like to know why the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist forgives sins every week when Christ's sacrifices on the cross forgave sins for all time? Why do other Apostolic Churches, such as the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, not teach that the eucharist forgives sins but otherwise is really the flesh and blood of Christ?

Abacabb, not sure where you got that information

This is the words of the priest in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom when he gives Communion to each individual:
(When administering Holy Communion, the priest says The servant of God (Name) receives the Body and Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

In addition, one of the pre-communion prayers of St. John Chrysostom is
I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief. And I believe that this is Thy pure Body and Thy own precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee, have mercy on me and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And grant that I may partake of Thy Holy Mysteries without condemnation, for the remission of sins and for life eternal. Amen.

 

[abacabb3]

I linked to a thread on the Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/question-the-eucharist-being-a-sacrifice.7876875/

They said no, the Eucharist does not forgive sins anew every week.

One poster specifically wrote:

The first time I participated in Holy Week services, it was incredibly powerful in that it almost seems to take one back in time to walk beside Christ that last week of His life. I later heard priests discussing that this is EXACTLY the Church's intent, and that this is the same amnesis with which we "remembrance" Christ's sacrifice through the Eucharist.

It made more sense to me after I understood and had experienced that. I'm not sure if that would make sense or help, but I thought I'd mention it.

I also needed to be sure the Church did not consider the Eucharist to be a continual re-sacrificing of Christ, which it can sound like from listening only to the prayers.

 

[PaladinValer]

Who came up with transubstantiation? I think it was Simon the Magician of Acts 8. He liked to perform magic tricks. He also visited Rome.

Absolutely no proof for this.

Furthermore, Transubstantiationism is merely one kind of Real Presence theology, and it is largely based on Aristotelian concepts that were "rediscovered" in Europe in the 13th century ce. The actual family of Real Presence theology is a proven part of historical Christian religion.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Jesus did. Last Supper.

 

[PaladinValer]

I linked to a thread on the Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/question-the-eucharist-being-a-sacrifice.7876875/

They said no, the Eucharist does not forgive sins anew every week.

One poster specifically wrote:

That's not what was being said. I strongly recommend rereading their words.

 

[JM]

I believe it is pretty clear in the Church Fathers that they all believed in the Real Presence, and they used terms that do not endorse transubstantiation's Aristotelian definitions, but do not deny them either.

Look at Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 22:

"Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?...Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you...Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ"

He could not have been more specific. Sure, the bread and wine look and taste like bread and wine, but be assured, they are really the Body and Blood of Christ.

Cyril also writes:

"Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature."

It appears that Cyril takes the real presence so literally, that he argues that we become partakers of the divine nature by the nutrients of the food being digested and distributed throughout our bodies.

Chrysostom likewise put it very succinctly: "And He Himself drank of it. For lest on hearing this, they should say, What then? Do we drink blood, and eat flesh? And then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended), therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood."

So, I think it is at best an uneducated claim that the early Church did not ascribe to the Real Presence and at worst disingenuous.

HOWEVER, the part that is interestingly absent in all of Chyrsostom's and Cyril's writings on the subject is that the "mystery"/"sacrifice"/"sacrament" forgives sins. Chrysostom makes very clear that its importance is a memorial: "For as Christ in regard to the bread and the cup said, Do this in remembrance of Me, revealing to us the cause of the giving of the Mystery." So, what I would like to know why the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist forgives sins every week when Christ's sacrifices on the cross forgave sins for all time? Why do other Apostolic Churches, such as the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, not teach that the eucharist forgives sins but otherwise is really the flesh and blood of Christ?

Exactly. Excellent post.

 

[abacabb3]

That's not what was being said. I strongly recommend rereading their words.

Actually, I asked for clarification and that is what was said. Matt essentially said because God exists out of time, the eucharist presents a real sacrifice outside of time but Christ is not re-sacrificed. So sins are not forgiven anew, but by Christ's sacrifice on the cross. I suggest you re-read the thread as I asked quite a bit of follow up question and they elaborated upon it.

But, being that you are EO, obviously you would disagree with how some other EO think. So, then I ask you, where in Church Fathers does it say that taking part in the Eucharist plays a role in the forgiveness of sins? It's a valid question.

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, I asked for clarification and that is what was said. Matt essentially said because God exists out of time, the eucharist presents a real sacrifice outside of time but Christ is not re-sacrificed. So sins are not forgiven anew, but by Christ's sacrifice on the cross. I suggest you re-read the thread as I asked quite a bit of follow up question and they elaborated upon it.

But, being that you are EO, obviously you would disagree with how some other EO think. So, then I ask you, where in Church Fathers does it say that taking part in the Eucharist plays a role in the forgiveness of sins? It's a valid question.

That's not very good temporal mechanics.

Since it is a participation in the same sacrifice, it is a sharing in the same benefits, which is the forgiveness of sins.

As it is the exact same event, it isn't being repeated in reality, but it is being experienced again. It is like taking a ride back into the future...same event, but experienced again. And because nothing interferes with the timeline, nothing is ever altered.

I realize that is very difficult to follow, but then again, temporal mechanics isn't a very easy subject.

 

[abacabb3]

That's not very good temporal mechanics.

Since it is a participation in the same sacrifice, it is a sharing in the same benefits, which is the forgiveness of sins.

As it is the exact same event, it isn't being repeated in reality, but it is being experienced again. It is like taking a ride back into the future...same event, but experienced again. And because nothing interferes with the timeline, nothing is ever altered.

I realize that is very difficult to follow, but then again, temporal mechanics isn't a very easy subject.

True, which is why time travel movies never work. Let me ask two questions:

1. When was it first elucidated that with the eucharist came forgiveness of sins?
2. If Christ's sacrifice is bloody, is the Eucharist a bloody or unbloody sacrifice?

 

[PaladinValer]

True, which is why time travel movies never work. Let me ask two questions:

No; it works. The problem is, as I said, a lot of people just aren't good with temporal mechanics.

1. When was it first elucidated that with the eucharist came forgiveness of sins?

It is implicit in its declaration that it is a participation in the same sacrifice.

2. If Christ's sacrifice is bloody, is the Eucharist a bloody or unbloody sacrifice?

It is an unbloody participation in the bloody one.