# Transusbstantiation



## Scott (Sep 17, 2004)

While this might apply as well in worship, here are some early church quotes father quotes about the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper that are contra transubstantiation.


"Bread and wine remain still the same they were before and yet are changed into another thing."
- St Ambrose of Milan (d. 397), De Sacramentis, bk. IV, ch. iv


"The substance of the bread, or the nature of the wine, does not cease to be."
- St Gelasius (d. 496), Adversus Eutychetem et Nestorium


"After the consecration the mystical signs do not cast off their own proper substance, form, and kind."
- Theodoret (d. 457), In Dialogis 1 & 2, Inconfus. dialogis, II


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 17, 2004)

Thanks for the quotes; if they won't listen to the bible, at least the church fathers rise up and condemn them.


----------



## Scott (Sep 17, 2004)

The Bible is a little more vague, especially in John 6. At the Colloquy of Something or Another, Luther (advocating consubstantiation) would not argue. He simply pounded the table and said "This is my body" or something like that.

Now, I reject trans and con substantiation for a variety of exegetical (for example, Paul always refers to the bread as bread) and other reasons. Still, there is material for other positions to use in their support.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 17, 2004)

[quote:c9eb56080e="Scott"]Still, there is material for other positions to use in their support.[/quote:c9eb56080e]

As James White pointed out in [i:c9eb56080e]Sola Scriptura[/i:c9eb56080e], that is really quite irrelevant. Sure, there are a lot of areas that the Fathers seem to support RCC, but if we can show that the testimony of the Fathers is inconsistent at best, and contradictory at worst, the Rome cannot use them in their arsenal. That is not to say that we cannot use the Fathers without profit, however.


----------



## Scott (Sep 20, 2004)

I was speaking of biblical material (eg. John 6). BTW, I am not a fan of White.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 20, 2004)

All of the above quotes can fit neatly into a Papist understanding of the Eucharist by appeal to Aristotlean categories.


----------



## cupotea (Sep 20, 2004)

It should also be added that they do nothing to refute a Consubstantial or Lutheran understanding.

That Transubstantiation is a medieval fabrication is not much in doubt. Whenever asked to provide 'proof' for it's existence prior to the 12th century, papists always fall back on whatever they can find which seems to imply at least some kind of real presence without a direct admission that the terrestrial elements endure. That this doesn't imply Transubstantiation but could refer either to a Lutheran/Consubstantial or to a classic Reformed sign/seal-presence seems obvious to everyone but the Romanist.

Just another example of the frustrating tendency they have of reading their current tradition into texts and documents that weren't originally written with a view to anything even remotely approaching it.


----------



## Scott (Sep 20, 2004)

Fred: In general terms, how can they fit an RCC understanding? I have not read much primary source stuff from RCs on transubs, but the stuff I have read distinguishes between the "species" (appearance) and the substance. The above quotes seem to speak to the substance, not just the appearance.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> While this might apply as well in worship, here are some early church quotes father quotes about the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper that are contra transubstantiation.
> 
> 
> ...



These are excellent quotes and a good reminder that transubstantiation, whether Roman or Protestant (a la Welch's grape juice), is _unsubstantiated_.


----------

