Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Praying in churches of other denominations; Split from the Ordinariate topic
Topic Started: Monday, 28. November 2011, 14:28 (1,544 Views)
OsullivanB

paul
 
why is there no mention of transubstantiation in either the Apostles or Nicene creeds?
The earliest known use of the word is in the eleventh century, although the belief that at consecration the bread and wine truly became the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus has existed from at least the beginning of the second century (almost certainly from the Institution but we don't have writings to show that). The Apostles Creed is also very early but the earliest appearance of it in its present form was in the early eighth century. The Nicene Creed is fourth century and evolved into its present form with the accretion of the filioque clause in the late sixth century.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
paul
Thursday, 8. December 2011, 20:56
why is there no mention of transubstantiation in either the Apostles or Nicene creeds?

Are non-catholic christians using Christ's words at the last supper as reasoning? ie This is my body, and with the wine this is my blood "do this in memory of me"
To me it suggests that the bread was transubstantial and the blood a memorial?
Just a guess, it could be that it was universally accepted by Christians that at the consecration the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ, therefore no need to discuss it at a Council or to define it in the Creeds.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

wikipedia
 
A letter by Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, written in AD 106 says: "I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ."
Writing to the Christians of Smyrna, in about AD 106, Saint Ignatius warned them to "stand aloof from such heretics", because, among other reasons, "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
That is good (but by no means the only) evidence for an early belief in what has since become the developed doctrine of transubstantiation, notably as expounded by Aquinas in Aristotelian terms.

It is unsurprising that it does not appear in the Creeds, as they do not deal with the liturgy or within it the consecration at all.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
saundthorp

paul
Thursday, 8. December 2011, 20:56
why is there no mention of transubstantiation in either the Apostles or Nicene creeds?

Are non-catholic christians using Christ's words at the last supper as reasoning? ie This is my body, and with the wine this is my blood "do this in memory of me"
To me it suggests that the bread was transubstantial and the blood a memorial?
Paul,
I found this extract from Wikipedia showing the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
I think the best explantion as to why is wasn't in either of the Creeds because it didn't need to be said, because belief in the bread and wine actually becoming the Body and Blood of Christ was universal from the earliest days of the Church. It became necessary to formalise the belief when it came under attack from Martin Luther.

Quote:
 
The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[5] The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215,[6] spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood".[7]

During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an import into Christian teaching of Aristotelian "pseudo-philosophy",[8] in favor of Martin Luther's doctrine of sacramental union, or in favor, per Huldrych Zwingli, of the Eucharist as memorial.[9]

The Council of Trent in its thirteenth session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".[10] This council officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,[11] with the aim of safeguarding Christ's presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[12] It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term "accidents", and the word "substance" was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West,[13] as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same "ïὐóßá" (Greek) or "substantia" (Latin) as the Father.


Here is the article in full,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it.
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

The title, Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or Creed of the Apostles), appears for the first time in a letter from a Council in Milan (probably written by Ambrose himself) to Pope Siricius in about 390: "Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled".[3][4] But what existed at that time was not what is now known as the Apostles' Creed but a shorter statement of belief that, for instance, did not include the phrase "maker of heaven and earth", a phrase that may have been inserted only in the 7th century.[5]...wiki

The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Emee
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Thursday, 8. December 2011, 14:28
My new novel about a Catholic undercover agent attending CofE Communion services will be called "The Man Who Was Sunday".
Lol! :nw:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Patrick
Thursday, 8. December 2011, 14:40
I give up, I know what I mean even if no-one else does. :deadhorse:
Comparing participation in Protestant services to British agents in the IRA was perhaps not your finest moment :grin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of what the Church says in Lumen Gentium:
Quote:
 

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Mairtin
Saturday, 10. December 2011, 13:56
Patrick
Thursday, 8. December 2011, 14:40
I give up, I know what I mean even if no-one else does. :deadhorse:
Comparing participation in Protestant services to British agents in the IRA was perhaps not your finest moment :grin:
In all fairness to myself, I did say it probably wasn't the best example....

:grin:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
What's the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist?
You can negotiate with a terrorist.

:smoker:
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
A couple in my village who attend the Church of England parish church consider setting up a Christian prayer group in their house. Some would say that for me to attend would give scandal. Some would say I should be there, to show a Catholic presence and to pray in the company of other Christians. Attendance could give a Catholic an opportunity to scotch common misconceptions about our beliefs and practices.

Prior to Vatican II we were forbidden to join in prayers with other denominations. Was there a ban on praying in private groups, unattached to denominations?

Just curious, about our ways in the not too distant past.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pete

That jogged my memory Rose. When I was a kid I joined the boy scouts but I was not allowed to enter the C of E church and join in their service with my fellow scouts; that would have been a sin believe it or not. Even when I was in the Royal Navy, Roman Catholics were given the order to fall out whilst the rest of the parade removed their hats and prayed. After Vatican 11 this all changed, the wall of division came tumbling down, we were no longer separated but one thank goodness.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

Pete, I don't know how old you are, I am 64. I was a member of the scouts. We were sponsered by a reformed church (probably Dutch). I was the only Catholic in the troop and was treated with great respect. We were, according to our bishops, allowed to take part as long as it did not conflict with Catholic teaching. To the best of my knowledge all prayer was strictly Christian without any bias. My father was part of the board, and when I came back from the service, the Pastor asked me to be troop leader.
Edited by Deacon Robert, Wednesday, 14. December 2011, 00:53.
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pete

I’ll be 74 this year Deacon Robert, we were not allowed in England to participate in any C of E church services. Perhaps in America (The Land of the Free) you may have been able to worship with other denominations but Catholics in England were not. Eventually they started a Catholic scout group in my own parish but that was in the 1950’s, by this time I was in my teens more interested in girls and attending the local dance hall. The Scouts didn’t have a look in during this period of my life.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

Pete, that seems to be one of the differences we have. My country, though founded on christian principals, there is not now and not have been, a particular sect of christianity that was dominent such as the C of E in England. There was a Catholic troop but my family thouht I should be with those I went to school with. I think their choice was what allowed me to see people as they are and not what others tell us to see.
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply