When Was Transubstantiation First Taught

Does anyone know when this was first taught? Similarly, why do we have to have a priest to know we are consuming Jesus’ body and blood? Any information on this would be very helpful.

Explicitly, at the last supper. Implicitly, elswhere in Christ’s teachings.

Jesus was a priest in the tradition of Melchisedeh (sp?) and he consecrated the original offering at the last supper. Similarly, his apostolic successors (i.e. priests and bishops) must consecrate the bread and wine, just as Jesus did, to effect the trasubstantiation. This has always been the core of Church teaching.

See John 6:5-7.

The doctrine has been held from the beginning. the word (transubstiation) was first used by Hildebert of Tours, around the year 1079.

The church, in other words, always believed that the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood of the Lord. It did not always have a philosophy capable of more fully explicating that transformation. Theologians began to use the word more frequently, and it was adopted by the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 and the Council of Lyons in 1274.

JimG

To, answer your second question, We have to have a priest beacuse the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Only priests can offer a sacrifice on behalf of others. For a priest to be able to do this, he must be a real priest, i.e., validly ordained. To be validly ordained, there must be a recognized, authoritive body to ordain him. Arguably, the only recognized, authoritive body that can ordain a priest to offer the sacrifice of the Mass is the Catholic Church. :slight_smile:

The night of the Last Supper…so what if the word itself aint in there…Purgatory as a word isnt there either…buts its clearly in the bible as well.

Actually Hebrews 9 & 10 go a LONG way in teaching on the whole issue of penalty/once and for all sacrafice/priest. I found it a real eye opener in terms of what it says(face value) versus what I was taught. Also I read elsewhere, and you might want to check this out yourself…1Tim 2:5…on exactly Who is our mediator between us and God…and it isn’t Mary, who by the way is NOT God’s mother. She gave birth to Jesus. God doen’t have a mother…He’s eternal.

[quote=tommyboy]Actually Hebrews 9 & 10 go a LONG way in teaching on the whole issue of penalty/once and for all sacrafice/priest. I found it a real eye opener in terms of what it says(face value) versus what I was taught. Also I read elsewhere, and you might want to check this out yourself…1Tim 2:5…on exactly Who is our mediator between us and God…and it isn’t Mary, who by the way is NOT God’s mother. She gave birth to Jesus. God doen’t have a mother…He’s eternal.
[/quote]

tommyboy,

No one is disputing that Jesus is the one mediator between us and God for our salvation, nor the one sacrifice, nor the one High Priest. St. Paul asserts in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32; 12:12-26 that the Eucharist was a share in the Body and Blood of Jesus, the unworthy reception of which was leading to the sickness and death of some. Hardly sounds like a purely symbolic thing to me. And St Paul also asserted that we have, are and share, one Body. The Body and Blood we share in the Eucharist is the one sacrifice made present to us by the power of though Holy Spirit as the Eucharistic Prayer, which must have heard.

Jesus is God, Mary is his mother = Mary is the mother of God Incarnate. No one says Mary is the mother of the Trinity, only that the Person to whom she gave birth here on earth in the flesh was the Eternal Son and God. The doctrine of Mary as Theotokos, God Bearer or Mother of God was actually asserted in Council as a refutation of a heresy (Nestorianism) that asserted Jesus was not God in the flesh. Women, including Mary, give birth to persons, not natures and the Person Mary gave physical birth to was the Second Person of the Trinity, Eternally Pre-existing Godhead.

By the way, this particular doctrine about Mary, which is really about Jesus, is basic Protestant theology and doctrine too, whether or not most Protestant laymen are aware of it.

Yes…GOD DOES have a mother…open up your bible and read it…heres something that will really shock you…but yet as true as the above:

Mary is Gods mother…and at the same time, his daughter, AND a Queen… :smiley:

Makes perfect sense to me. :thumbsup:

Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, called Mary "The MOTHER of my LORD’

If its good enough for Elizabeth…its good enough for me.

dream wanderer

[quote=tommyboy]Actually Hebrews 9 & 10 go a LONG way in teaching on the whole issue of penalty/once and for all sacrafice/priest. I found it a real eye opener in terms of what it says(face value) versus what I was taught. Also I read elsewhere, and you might want to check this out yourself…1Tim 2:5…on exactly Who is our mediator between us and God…and it isn’t Mary, who by the way is NOT God’s mother. She gave birth to Jesus. God doen’t have a mother…He’s eternal.
[/quote]

And I always thought Jesus was God! What did He mean by “I and the Father are ONE”

[quote=Faithful 2 Rome]Yes…GOD DOES have a mother…open up your bible and read it…heres something that will really shock you…but yet as true as the above:

Mary is Gods mother…and at the same time, his daughter, AND a Queen… :smiley:

Makes perfect sense to me. :thumbsup:
[/quote]

I thought God was the creator. How can God the Father have a mother,makes no sense to me. :confused:

[quote=SPOKENWORD]I thought God was the creator. How can God the Father have a mother,makes no sense to me. :confused:
[/quote]

Of course you are right to say that the Creator is uncreated . No one argues that except the Mormons. But the greatest Mystery of all time is that That Creator became a little baby and one glorious night, the Creator of everything opened His eyes and looked upon His mothers face.

[quote=adorer]Does anyone know when this was first taught? Similarly, why do we have to have a priest to know we are consuming Jesus’ body and blood? Any information on this would be very helpful.
[/quote]

Back to Transubstantiation. I don’t think that the concept of Transubstantiation is that the bread really becomes Jesus ( that is , as you say, taught right from the beginning),rather isn’t it an attempt by Aquinas to show the reasonableness of the concept using the Philosophy of Aristotle?

while we’re on the subject…what does that mean? Does transub mean that that the bread and wine/grape juice turns in the actual blood and body somehow? that’s what I’ve heard anyway.

[quote=Curious]while we’re on the subject…what does that mean? Does transub mean that that the bread and wine/grape juice turns in the actual blood and body somehow? that’s what I’ve heard anyway.
[/quote]

Transubstantiation is a mystery and a dogmatic teaching of the Church the means the during the Mass at the consecration, the bread and wine change into the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.

[quote=davidv]Transubstantiation is a mystery and a dogmatic teaching of the Church the means the during the Mass at the consecration, the bread and wine change into the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.
[/quote]

Thanks Davidv for your advise on that" other" matter.

But isn’t Transubstantiation literally about substance and accident?–Aristitollian concepts to help us understand how it could happen? Surely one need not be a Platonist to believe in the real presence? Can’t we believe it , just because Jesus said it ?

[quote=JohnCarroll]Back to Transubstantiation. I don’t think that the concept of Transubstantiation is that the bread really becomes Jesus ( that is , as you say, taught right from the beginning),rather isn’t it an attempt by Aquinas to show the reasonableness of the concept using the Philosophy of Aristotle?
[/quote]

Transubstantiation simply puts the basic belief into philosophical terms. It means that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Yes, it uses Aristotlian philosophy to describe this change.

The full doctrine could be stated this way:

After the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine are gone, changed into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus. Only the appearances (what Aristotle and Aquinas call the “accidents”)of the bread and wine remain. The substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ becomes present, under the appearance of bread and wine. Where His body and blood are, so is His soul and divinity, the complete Jesus, whole and entire.

JimG

[quote=JohnCarroll]Thanks Davidv for your advise on that" other" matter.

But isn’t Transubstantiation literally about substance and accident?–Aristitollian concepts to help us understand how it could happen? Surely one need not be a Platonist to believe in the real presence? Can’t we believe it , just because Jesus said it ?
[/quote]

You’re welcome.
In a strict discussion of its denotation I believe that would be correct. I would come nearly completely unarmed to a detailed philosophical debate. I was using it to describe what happens when the bread and wine become the real presence of Jesus under the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine.

[quote=SPOKENWORD]I thought God was the creator. How can God the Father have a mother,makes no sense to me. :confused:
[/quote]

Mary is not the Mother of the Father (in speaking of the Trinity); she is the Mother of Jesus, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, God the Son. Because the Son is God, she is the Mother of God, because there is only One God.

Persons have Mothers. There are 3 Persons in the Trinity. Mary is the Mother of the Son. There is only ONE divine nature. Natures don’t have mothers.

JimG

[quote=Fidelis]To, answer your second question, We have to have a priest beacuse the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Only priests can offer a sacrifice on behalf of others. For a priest to be able to do this, he must be a real priest, i.e., validly ordained. To be validly ordained, there must be a recognized, authoritive body to ordain him. Arguably, the only recognized, authoritive body that can ordain a priest to offer the sacrifice of the Mass is the Catholic Church. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Er, not to burst your bubble, but the orders of all of the Sister Churches are considered licit/valid. The Apostolic succession is the important issue and since all of the Sister Churches of Orthodoxy are considered valid and Apostolic, their orders are recognized by the RCC.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.