Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Protestantism and rejection of transubstantiation

13 replies

hiddenhome · 25/11/2011 12:30

Does anybody know why Protestantism rejected the belief in transubstantiation and when this first came about? Henry VIII still believed in it even though he rejected the link with Rome.

OP posts:
neolara · 25/11/2011 12:34

Well H VIII ditched Catholicism because he wanted to marry Anne Bolyen. It was pretty much a political decision as opposed to a theological one. I'm not sure why other Protestants rejected transubstantiation though - maybe it just didn't make sense to them?

Bucharest · 25/11/2011 12:51

Henry never intended a total schism with Rome.

I'm an agnostic prod living in Catholic Italy and accompanying dd to mass every Sunday (fingers in all theological pies, me Grin) and I must say, transubstantiation is the thing I have most difficulty with.

JohnStuartMills · 25/11/2011 14:55

Oh gosh. I don't know for sure, but I'll put in my ha'penny worth.

From what I can make out, it didn't even become officially Catholic line until around 16th century after council of Trent. Catholic church declared ecclesiastical penalty of anathema to anyone who didn't believe in it. It had been milling around for a while and was mentioned in Lateran council in 13th century. It would appear disagreement culminated ( or there was enough support to voice) around Luther's time and the reformation movement in Europe. They (protestants) regarded it as a Aristotelian influence into Christianity and not to be taken literally. It was alluded to in some early christian writings and the Catholic church saw it a belief held by Christians from the beginning ( and thus no need to prove it from the later assembled scriptures). However, I don't believe some early protestantism envisaged a break with the Catholic church but maybe difference within it ( if that makes any sense). Maybe it's in the name 'Reformation'.

The break of England with Rome wasn't really a protestant movement based on theological dissatisfaction, but the break with Rome allowed protestantism to take hold ifyswim. If Henry and Kate had boy babies, I guess Henry would have purged the equally foreign continental protestant influence in England as he had been doing all along. His gripe with Rome was simply that they wouldn't give him a divorce from Kate. As pope was being held by the throat by Kate's nephew it was not going to happen either. After the break, I guess the continental protestant movement had time and place to take root and develop unchallenged in England. I think it continued and rejected transubstantiation under Edward VI and then officially consolidated this denial of transubstantiation among the 39 articles under Elizabeth (Mary was only in for ca. 5 years, not enough to shift new regime and power structure really). The laws brought in against the presence and practice of Catholicism were so discriminatory they annihilated it in England to all intents and purposes. There had been huge resistance to forcible imposition of Anglicanism. Stick and carrot. I guess it was political rather than doctrinal really as adherence to Catholicism was touted as akin to treachery. Law barring Catholics from power base (monarchy and government I think) made sure the new ascendency could hold onto positions.

Having said the 39 articles mention transubstantiation, I think the wording is supremely vague and this has allowed some Anglicans to hold onto the belief of transubstantiation. Don't think all of coe is as protestant as some.

Having said all of that I guess disagreement must have been out there all along in Catholicism (along with many other things) until the council of Trent (when it became doctrine). Lollardy in England believed in consubstantiation in 14th century, guess they were like a catholic movement that rejected trans..

Short answer, in England during Edward VI and put in 39 articles during Elizabeth II.

Out of interest, even though it is officially Catholic line, I wonder how many Catholics in this day and age actually regard Eucharist as anything more than a memorial of the last supper.

As I've written this now, I'll post it. I'm even boring myself though, I've rambled on so long. Sorry.

Bucharest · 25/11/2011 15:49

Interesting stuff JSM Smile

I had a conversation about it with an Italian colleague when the inevitable "but you are protestant so you don't believe in God" thing comes up Hmm I tried the "but it is still bread isn't it?" (or rather what looks like a palid pringle these days) and she was horrified. I felt a bit bad actually, as I'd always kind of assumed that Catholics just see it as symbolic.

I shall pay special attention on Sunday and see what dd's priest says when he dishes the pringles host out. Grin

thanksamillion · 25/11/2011 17:43

Some high C0fE churches believe in transubstantiation too so I guess it's not just Catholics but the catholic end of protestantism too Grin.

With many of these things though I do wonder how much the ordinary congregants really believe it.

Personally I don't really understand why you would believe it tbh as it doesn't seem to even be hinted at in the bible

hiddenhome · 25/11/2011 19:17

Thank you for your replies Smile

Bucharest Catholics believe that the wafers become the body of Christ, whilst still retaining their physical appearance as that of a wafer. It's not symbolic, but literally the body of Christ. Once the wafer has been consecrated this change takes place. When I was taking communion in the CofE church, the consecrated bread and wine were treated with the upmost respect and any that was left was eaten/drank by the ordained clergyman who was taking the service. This led me to wonder just what Protestants are meant to believe and why bother to consecrate the bread/wine at all if the real presence is not there? If it's still just bread and wine, albeit blessed, then why not just dispose of it in the normal way as you would other food that is left after a meal? Catholics mustn't dispose of the wine or host after communion has taken place because it is literally the body of Christ.

OP posts:
sarahtigh · 26/11/2011 22:13

transubstantiation was not really a catholic doctrien for the first 1200 years and the rejection of this idea began in Germany with Martin luther nothing to do with henry VIII

there are basically 4 views of bread and wine

  1. transubstaniation as detailed abovefirst mentioned by Radbertus in 818AD offically adopted in 1215
2 Consubstntiation which means that christ is with in and under the bread and wine the belief of Lutheran churches
  1. Spirtual Presence of Christ in the bread and wine not literal presence, as understood by Calvin and Zwingli and many of the puritans and a lot of reformed churches today presbyterians and some baptists/ evangelicals
  2. representative and memorial it is just bread and wine but it means something special and is commanded by God "do this in remembrance of me" believed by some baptists evangelicals amish

I tend towards view 3 myself at our church we do use bread ( not sliced but a loaf broken in 2 then passed round ) there is nothing special done with what is left, to me the important thing is remembering that christs body was broken for us and his blood shed for us and that is what the bread and wine symbolise

SESthebrave · 05/12/2011 20:49

I am quite unusual in that I used to be CofE but converted to Catholocism in my early 20s. This was a bit of a journey over a few years but in the end I decided that I wasn't rejecting my CofE years but for me as an individual, found that I was able to become closer to God in my personal relationship with Him through the Catholic Church.

As part of this process, I attended an RCIA course for about 9 months and one of the issues that I came up against was transubstantiation. I had never heard of this concept as a CofE but did feel that there was something missing from communion for me - along the lines of treating it with such reverence when it was bread and wine and no more. Also, I remember my vicar preaching a sermon where he said that a communion service had no meaning unless it was combined with a sermon.

Anyway, none of that convinced me of the truth of transubstantiation. In the end, one of my RC friends suggested I read John 6 to see whether that would help me. I prayed about it and read the chapter and found that it spoke to me. Towards the end of the chapter, the disciples actually question Jesus and say "Surely you don't mean us to actually eat your flesh?" and he says quite clearly "Yes I do". (Apologies, I have paraphrased that instead of a direct quote).

I'm not saying there is no possibility I am wrong on this but I do not believe in this instance that Jesus was being descriptive but factual and - difficult as it is to accept the concept - I have already accepted that Jesus died and rose from the dead so why could God not achieve this miracle too?
It is now a core part of my faith.

I'm not sure whether what I have typed helps or makes sense but wanted to respond with a different perspective.

hiddenhome · 05/12/2011 21:09

That's great SESthebrave Smile

OP posts:
MaxwellHSEimp · 29/01/2024 08:41

For anyone still reading this in 2024--Correction: the Catholic Church defined the dogma in the 1200s, but only because before that, it was so well understood that there was no need to define it. The word used to describe the belief may have developed and distinguished over time and then defined officially.
From the earliest days of the Church, we see the Church Fathers proclaiming unanimously that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the Eucharist truly saves. We also see them articulating that the bread and wine become the Eucharist at the prayer of consecration, and that once consecrated, the bread and wine cease to be common bread and wine. Christ doesn’t just mingle amongst the elements. The elements cease to be, and become Christ instead, in what has been called transmutation, and would soon be called transelementation and eventually, transubstantiation.
But even in the Anglican Church in the beginning accepted the Idea that bread and wine, prayed over by a priest, becomes thoroughly and substantially the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. This concept has been accepted by the Catholic Church (From Rome to Constantinople) Greek, Russian, etc Orthodoxy, the Church of England, and other theologically orthodox Christian churches, and was often used as a test for the suppression of Protestants during Henry VIII's time.
1534 act in Parliament which declared Henry VIII the Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England, formalizing the nation's break with the Roman Catholic Church.

  • Ten Articles1536 act of Parliament which stated the official positions of the Church of England. It upheld orthodox teachings on the sacraments of baptism, penance, *and Transubstantiation in the Holy Eucharist*, but also introduced government opposition to traditional Catholic practices such as prayerful devotions to saints and to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.
ALSO
  • Six Articles1539 revision of the Ten Articles. Asserted strongly the Church of England's commitment to orthodoxy, stating that *the doctrine of Transubstantiation was true,* priests should not marry, monastic vows were inviolable, private masses were legal, and oral confessions to a priest were necessary.

In order for the consecration of the elements (the bread and wine) to take place, it must be performed by a ministerial priest, different than the universal priesthood all believers share (I.e, a “sacrificing” priest and one with Apostolic succession going back to Christ’s delegation of His Priesthood at the Last Supper.) Since the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the other ancient Christian churches have preserved the ministerial priesthood through the apostolic succession of bishops, their Eucharists are valid.

Unfortunately, the ministerial priesthood has not been retained in Protestant churches. It did not have to be this way, for the other Christian churches have retained it, but most Protestant churches (all but the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition) have rejected the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood and thus ceased to perpetuate it, breaking the apostolic succession in their circles.

It is equally unfortunate that, while many Anglican/Episcopalians profess belief in a ministerial priesthood, the apostolic succession was ruptured in their circles also and their priesthood is no longer valid. After Henry VIII broke away from the Church, seized its infrastructure in England, and (literally) used conversion by the sword to create the Church of England (threatening bishops, priests, and laity with imprisonment and death if they did not convert to his body and thus creating the wave of Catholic martyrs in England and Wales and later in Scotland and Ireland), his successor Edward VI introduced a drastically altered and invalid version of the rite of ordination with the result that the apostolic succession (which had previously been present in the Anglican church) ceased and its ministerial priesthood stopped. (Pope Leo the VIII wrote a declaration explaining more about this.)

Thus, unfortunately, there are no valid Eucharists in Protestant churches except for those performed by priests who were ordained as priests by a bishop in the apostolic succession or ordained by bishops who were ordained as bishops by another bishop in the apostolic succession. There are some of these in Protestant circles, and so some Protestant Eucharists are valid, but, regrettably, there is no Protestant denomination of which this is true as a whole.

This does not mean that Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans do not experience a real encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist. They can and often do receive Jesus spiritually in communion, they just do not receive him in the fully, sacramental manner he intended and which he wants them to experience.

Also, any person, including non-Catholic, is welcome to visit a Catholic Church or Chapel, to pray in the presence of the Lord, really present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This is the place, wherein the Blessed Sacrament will normally be reserved in a Tabernacle outside of Mass times. There are also occasions to adore God in the Sacrament during "Eucharistic Adoration." A "monstrace" a sacred holder for the Host is placed on the Altar and this is a special moment of grace to pray and talk to the Lord. You don't have to be Catholic to go to Adoration, It is silent prayer. A time the Lord may speak to your heart, You will note a sanctuary lamp/candle --a light signifying the Real Presence. This is why we genuflect toward the tabernacle when entering the Church.

As a minor point, something Catholics call "A Spiritual Communion prayer" for times one may be prevented from going to Holy Communion at Mass. A spiritual Communion is a genuine, though less sacramentally perfect, sharing in the Body and Blood of the Lord. Here is an example of this prayer, if you would like to ask Jesus into your soul in a special way, as if you could receive the Eucharist.

ACT OF SPIRITUAL COMMUNION:

MY JESUS, I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE PRESENT IN THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT. I LOVE YOU ABOVE ALL THINGS, AND I DESIRE TO RECEIVE YOU IN MY SOUL. SINCE I CANNOT NOW RECEIVE YOU SACRAMENTALLY, COME AT LEAST SPIRITUALLY INTO MY HEART. I EMBRACE YOU AS IF YOU WERE ALREADY THERE AND UNITE MYSELF WHOLLY TO YOU. NEVER PERMIT ME TO BE SEPARATED FROM YOU. AMEN.

This information is offered for anyone with an open, fair mind and heart and putting aside any bigotry and ignorance toward the Catholic faith, (the typical anti-Catholic bigotry and disrespect is unfortunately present in this thread-with Catholics the last creed its ok to mock and discriminate against apparently) toward learning factual and contextual history as well as what the Catholic Church has taught since the beginning, what the Anglican Church used to believe and changed after over 1500 years of belief, (why was the truth, acknowledged for one and a half millennia then changeable? Except for political expediency) that this is what Jesus Christ Himself taught and in fulfilling the prophecies of the old testament, offered a New Manna from Heaven, better than miraculous manna to feed His people n the desert, back when God miraculously provided His people with both bread and flesh, which they both ate and kept in the tabernacle so they might look upon it. Jesus fulfilled this as Messiah, with His very Self.

heyhohello · 29/01/2024 10:58

I think remembrance is an interesting thing. The act of remembering involves a transformation (as does transubstantiation) because as we remember and a thought manifests in our minds it changes us Mentally, physically, in terms of our brain and body chemistry and physiologically in terms of new brain connections and the effects upon our bodies.

liverpoolnana · 29/01/2024 11:49

Just a small correction of a typo, if I may. The Blessed Sacrament is displayed in a 'monstrance', not a ''monstace'. From the word meaning 'to show' e.g. demonstration.

Mustardseed86 · 29/01/2024 14:15

From the earliest days of the Church, we see the Church Fathers proclaiming unanimously that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the Eucharist truly saves. We also see them articulating that the bread and wine become the Eucharist at the prayer of consecration, and that once consecrated, the bread and wine cease to be common bread and wine. Christ doesn’t just mingle amongst the elements. The elements cease to be, and become Christ instead, in what has been called transmutation, and would soon be called transelementation and eventually, transubstantiation.

The early Church Fathers weren't unanimous or univocal about many things, including this. That really only works if you're speaking to Catholics who use the same cherry-picked quotes and sources, and actively dismiss dissenting voices because by definition they weren't in union with what eventually became Catholic teaching, so are invalidated. This is only really a problem if your Christian identity rests upon being in the 'right' denomination with a long list of all the 'right' beliefs.

A few quotes from some of the greats -

Tertullian: "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body."

Justin Martyr: “The bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood."

Origen: “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist."

Augustine: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood.”

My personal belief is that the Eucharist can be understood in a number ways. It's a symbol, a remembrance, and a sacrament in which Christ is present in a special way. I don't see an issue with allowing Christian freedom (and freedom of thought in general!)

Not even going there with your valid rites vs invalid rites 😅.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread