Some Roman Catholic Issues: Transubstantiation/Apocrypha

Confusion Between Real Presence and Transubstantiation

There seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion on the part of a number of people. Regarding some of the issues of some of my recent videos especially in reference to Roman Catholicism one of the problems seems to be that for a lot of people they use the terms real presence and transubstantiation as synonyms and no one who reads church history and Considers the development even the development of doctrine even looking at biblical parameters the development of doctrine over time can can make that kind of Conclusion can can be that confused.

Recognizing that there were people who did not make that connection that in fact transubstantiation requires an entire philosophical framework to be even Understandable that many in the early church could not possibly be even possessed.

And I think also in another area in regards to the Apocrypha The appearance of Gary Machuda's book Seemingly has resulted in the creation of a number of Roman Catholics who think that the acceptance of these books was.

Universal.

Their Catholics are saying everybody has always believed These books to be fully canonical scripture and no one ever disagreed until Martin Luther. And so I'd like to provide two clips from previous debates one I had posted earlier quite some time ago, but it was back when I was just posting video to use in my blog.

I didn't have any type of interaction or anything like that in it and that is from the mass debate from 1999 where I address that development over time and and the establishment of the Aristotelian concept of transubstantiation accidents and substance and what that ended up meaning to the concept of The real presence now being changed into transubstantiation and then a section I haven't posted before and that is a portion of My opening statement with the Gary Machuda and the debate that we did on Long Island.

So hopefully this will be helpful and at least helping to people understand what the parameters of the discussion really are. Now toward the end of the first millennium one finds such notables as Gottschalk and Retramnus Opposing the concept of the literal materiality of the elements of the Eucharist when Paschalius Radbertus though not using the later scholastic terminology of transubstantiation Presented very much the same concept the debate was joined.

The Eucharistic Controversy in the First Millennium

Demonstrating that surely such a concept was not the ancient in constant faith the church the renowned historian Philip Schaaf notes quote in both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a Spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect the one was based on a literal the other a figurative Interpretation of the words of institution and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of st. John but remember folks Council of Trent said this has always been the faith of the church.

How indeed? Could two viewpoints exist side by side and result in such controversy if? Trent is correct that it has ever been a firm belief in the Church of God in The debates that took place toward the end of the first millennium and at the beginning of the second those who defended a symbolic Understanding of the Eucharist were able to quote on their side the testimony of Augustine.

It is ironic to note that in regard to two dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church Transubstantiation and the concept of the immaculate conception the testimony of Augustine had to be overcome and that with great difficulty.

The word.

Transubstantiation seems to have first been used by Hildebert of Tours in about 1134. Others mentioned other Differing candidates for the first people to use it, but it was a long time after the Apostles before that term came into use.

The Rise of Eucharistic Adoration and Corpus Christi

I'd like to introduce to you a key issue. If one believes in Transubstantiation then one will worship the consecrated host as God the Council of Trent says that were to do so. Yet history accords that the elevation and adoration of the host is not an ancient practice and as the New Catholic Encyclopedia notes such items as the tabernacle pick saboreum, etc Begin to appear only at the same time as the use of the term Transubstantiation.

While the ancient church carried the host to the sick the idea of reserving the host in a tabernacle for worship came about at This later time as Schaff notes quote the elevation adoration of the host were practiced in the Latin Church as early as the 12th century.

Honorius the third in 1217 made obligatory the ringing of a bell at the moment the words of Institution were uttered and the worshipers might fall on their knees and adore the host. The Lambeth synod of 1281 ordered the church bells to be rung at the moment of Consecration so the laboring man on the field and the woman engaged in her domestic work might bow down and worship.

Synods prescribed that the picks the receptacle for the host be made of gold silver ivory or at least polished copper. A Light was kept burning before it. Perpetually in case a crumb of the bread or a drop of the wine fell upon the cloth the priest garments.

The part was to be cut out and burnt and the ashes thrown the saccharine. If a drop happened to fall on a stone or a piece of wood or hard earth the priest or some pious person was to. The festival of the Eucharist Corpus Christi celebrated the first Thursday after Trinity Sunday had its origin.

The vision of Juliana a Nun of Liege who saw the full moon representing the church year with one spot on its surface. This spot indicated the church's neglect to properly honor the real presence. She made her vision known to the Bishop of Liege and the Archdeacon James Pantaleon.

A Celebration was appointed for the diocese and when James became Pope under the name of urban the fourth he prescribed in 1264 the general observance of the festival. John the 22nd inaugurated the process were in on Corpus Christi day.

The host was carried about the streets with great solemnities. He also says the denial of the cup to the laity became common in the 13th century. It was at first due to the fear of profanation by spilling the consecrated blood of Christ.

The Late Emergence of Eucharistic Miracles and the Apocrypha

Now, let me ask you a question. Why did it take more than a thousand years before anyone was concerned about spilling the consecrated wine and Why did the miraculous stories about consecrated hosts literally?

Explode in number only after the beginning of the second millennium in the Apostles well as Beckwith says. But the undeniable truth is that the New Testament by contrast with the early fathers and by contrast with its own Practice in relation to the books of the Hebrew Bible never actually quotes from or ascribes authority to any of the Apocrypha.

Did they know of those books? Of course, they knew of those books. But remember they knew of a lot of books. Paul quoted from pagan philosophers. Jude quotes from the Pseudepigrapha. That doesn't mean they accepted those books as canonical, but they had read those books and were aware of their existence.

Now what about early Christians in the Apocrypha it was stated that all of the patristic sources Utilized these books as direct scripture in reality. Those early writings are so fragmentary that many books the Apocrypha are never even made reference to.

Some never make any reference to the Apocryphal books at all. And so it is a very large step from a few references to saying all held a particular perspective. We do know that Melito of Sardis Inquired of the church in Palestine concerning the Old Testament can around AD 175.

He discovered that the canon did not include the Apocryphal books. How can it be that he would inquire in Palestine? I must ask if in fact the canon of the Old Testament including the Apocrypha was a matter of apostolic tradition as Trent had claimed.

The Septuagint, Philo, Josephus, and the Old Testament Canon

What about the Septuagint we are often told well the the Greek Septuagint contained these these books. Well many of the manuscripts that we have in fact all our manuscripts of the Septuagint are Christian manuscripts.

They're not produced by the Jews and many of them do contain one or more or all of the Apocryphal books. But there is no one single Septuagint. It wasn't like you put out the New American Standard Bible back then you had handwritten versions that had different Levels of clarity and value to them.

It developed over time in the centuries prior to Christ. Now Philo and Josephus. Philo the Jew in Alexandria. Josephus the Jewish historian both used the Septuagint, but both rejected the Apocryphal books.

Evidently some in the early church ignorant of the Old Testament can and the backgrounds the people of Israel Assume that since some or all the Apocryphal books appeared in their Greek translations. Then they must be canonical.

Those early writers who knew the most about the Old Testament. Did not make this mistake and remember very few of the early church writers knew the Hebrew language. There is a division a schism between Judaism and Christianity very early on and as especially after origin most looked at the Old Testament is nothing but a book of allegory anyways and.

So without knowing the Hebrew language and without knowing the backgrounds that are so important the proper exegesis of the biblical text. It is easy to see how that kind of ignorance could take place.

Athanasius and the Rejection of the Apocrypha

However. Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria the great defender of the Nicene Creed in his 39th Festal letter in 367 ad. Rejected all the freestanding Apocryphal books only accepting the Greek Additions to the canonical books that he had possibly not even being aware that they were in fact additions to the canonical books themselves.

Who else. Hilary of Poitiers. Cyril of Jerusalem. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzus Basil the Great Epiphanius Amphilochius Rufinus all rejected the freestanding Apocrypha as fully canonical in their writings.

Indeed JND Kelly has said the view which now commended itself fairly generally in the Eastern Church is represented by Athanasius Cyril of Jerusalem Gregory Nazianzus and Epiphanius was that the deuterocanonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper.