Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Transubstantiation
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Reformation=== During the [[Protestant Reformation]], the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an Aristotelian "[[pseudophilosophy]]"<ref>Luther, M. ''The Babylonian Captivity of the Christian Church''. 1520. Quoted in, McGrath, A. 1998. ''Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought''. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford. p. 198.</ref> imported into Christian teaching and jettisoned in favor of [[Martin Luther]]'s doctrine of [[sacramental union]], or in favor, per [[Huldrych Zwingli]], of the Eucharist as memorial.<ref>McGrath, op.cit. pp. 198–99</ref> [[File:De-captivitate-Babylonica.jpg|thumb|upright|Title page of [[Martin Luther]]'s ''[[On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church|De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae]]'']] In the Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a matter of much controversy. Martin Luther held that "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist".<ref>McGrath, op.cit., p. 197.</ref> In his ''[[On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church]]'' (published on 6 October 1520) Luther wrote: {{Quote|Therefore, it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand "bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread", and "wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine". Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning. Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation – certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea – until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the [[Pierre d'Ailly|Cardinal of Cambray]] himself admits.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A Prelude by Martin Luther on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 2:26 & 2:27 |url=http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/babylonian/babylonian.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090618075035/http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/babylonian/babylonian.htm |archive-date=2009-06-18}}</ref>|author=|title=|source=}} In his 1528 ''[[Confession Concerning Christ's Supper]]'', he wrote: {{Quote|Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body", even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union", because Christ's body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.<ref>''Weimar Ausgabe'' 26, 442; ''Luther's Works'' 37, 299–300.</ref>}} What Luther thus called a "sacramental union" is often erroneously called "[[consubstantiation]]" by non-Lutherans. In ''On the Babylonian Captivity'', Luther upheld belief in the Real Presence of Jesus and, in his 1523 treatise ''[[The Adoration of the Sacrament]]'', defended adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In England, the [[Six Articles (1539)|Six Articles of 1539]] prescribed the death penalty for any who denied transubstantiation. This was changed under [[Elizabeth I|Elizabeth I]]. In the [[Thirty-nine Articles]] of 1563, the [[Church of England]] declared: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions".<ref>[[Thirty-Nine Articles]], article 28</ref> Laws were enacted against participation in Catholic worship, which [[recusancy|remained illegal]] until 1791.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Penal Laws | British and Irish history |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Penal-Laws |website=Encyclopedia Britannica}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=September 13, 2010 |title=Factbox: Catholicism in Britain |newspaper=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-britain-catholics-idUSTRE68C1R420100913 |via=reuters.com}}</ref> For a century and half – 1672 to 1828 – transubstantiation had an important role, in a negative way, in British political and social life. Under the [[Test Act]], the holding of any public office was made conditional upon explicitly denying Transubstantiation. Any aspirant to public office had to repeat the formula set out by the law: "I, ''N'', do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the [[Sacrament|bread and wine]], at or after the [[consecration]] thereof by any person whatsoever." ====Council of Trent==== In 1551, the [[Council of Trent]] declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a [[dogma#Catholicism and Eastern Christianity|dogma]] of faith<ref>{{cite web| url = https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html| title = The Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, canon 1: "If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema."}}</ref> and stated that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."<ref name=CT13/> In its 13th session ending 11 October 1551, the Council 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 (Christianity)|species]] only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".<ref name="CT13">{{Cite web |editor1-first=J. |editor1-last=Waterworth |others=Scanned by Hanover College students in 1995 |title=The Council of Trent – The Thirteenth Session |url=https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html |publisher=Dolman |location=London |edition=1848}}</ref> 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, 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.<ref name="britannica">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Transubstantiation |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |date=21 September 2023 |url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/603196/transubstantiation}}</ref> 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,<ref name="Sophia">{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=Charles |date=April 1, 1964 |title=The theology of transubstantiation |journal=Sophia |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=12–24 |doi=10.1007/BF02785911 |s2cid=170618935}}</ref> as shown for instance by its use in the [[Nicene Creed]] which speaks of Christ having the same "{{Lang|el|οὐσία}}" (Greek) or "{{Lang|la|substantia}}" (Latin) as the [[God the Father|Father]].
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)