Who Came Up With The Idea...

[Selah]

...that the bread and the wine used in communion were merely symbols and nothing more? I have always wondered about this...

[icelandic_iceskater]

I've always wondered that too...

Edited September 22, 2008 by icelandic_iceskater

[phatcatholic]

This should answer your question, from the [i]New Advent[/i] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm"][b]article on the Real Presence[/b][/url]:[list]As for the cogency of the argument from tradition, this historical fact is of decided significance, namely, that the dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries. In the course of the dogma's history there arose in general three great Eucharistic controversies, the first of which, begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century, scarcely extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself solely with the philosophical question, whether the Eucharistic Body of Christ is identical with the natural Body He had in Palestine and now has in heaven. Such a numerical identity could well have been denied by Ratramnus, Rabanus Maurus, Ratherius, Lanfranc, and others, since even nowadays a true, though accidental, distinction between the sacramental and the natural condition of Christ's Body must be rigorously maintained. The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church was offered when Berengarius of Tours, influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena (d. about 884), the first opponent of the Real Presence, rejected both the latter truth and that of Transubstantiation. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church. The third and the sharpest controversy was that opened by the Reformation in the sixteenth century, in regard to which it must be remarked that Luther was the only one among the Reformers who still clung to the old Catholic doctrine, and, though subjecting it to manifold misrepresentations, defended it most tenaciously.
[/list]I hope that helps.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

[LouisvilleFan]

Could it bee.... [i]Satan[/i]???

Just kidding... well, maybe not... I dunno. At any rate, I've read before that some of Origen's teachings were also used by those who originally taught symbolic Communion. Not that Origen himself ever believed this, but some of the things he wrote brought people to that conclusion.

[mortify]

[quote name='Selah' post='1657569' date='Sep 17 2008, 07:02 PM']...that the bread and the wine used in communion were merely symbols and nothing more? I have always wondered about this...[/quote]

Sounds like something a Protestant would say.

[Selah]

I know...just wondering who the first one was to say it

[she_who_is_not]

Just to clarify, some Protestants do believe in transubstantiation and the real presence.
Like me!
And a whole bunch of other people who have no desire to come home.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Selah' post='1670450' date='Oct 4 2008, 08:54 PM']I know...just wondering who the first one was to say it [/quote]

I'm pretty sure Calvin was the first to teach it. Zwingli was also close to his time. Both of them "lead the charge," so to speak, and Luther passionately defended the Real Presence to them.

[quote name='she_who_is_not' post='1670663' date='Oct 5 2008, 03:47 AM']Just to clarify, some Protestants do believe in transubstantiation and the real presence.
Like me!
And a whole bunch of other people who have no desire to come home.[/quote]

Some believe in the Real Presence, but transubstantiation is a uniquely Catholic belief, though the word itself is not used as much these days. It's not in the current Catechism.

Edited October 7, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Selah]

[quote]I'm pretty sure Calvin was the first to teach it. Zwingli was also close to his time. Both of them "lead the charge," so to speak, and Luther passionately defended the Real Presence to them.[/quote]

I figured Zwingli and Calvin had something to do with it

Of all Luther got wrong, he did get the Real Prescense right!

[she_who_is_not]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1671977' date='Oct 7 2008, 08:18 AM']Some believe in the Real Presence, but transubstantiation is a uniquely Catholic belief, though the word itself is not used as much these days. It's not in the current Catechism.[/quote]

Many Anglo-catholics do believe in transubstantiation. It is not a required belief and other Anglicans reject the idea. However, my knowledge is based merely upon personal experience.
The 39 Articles reject the idea, however, the Articles are non-binding.

However, in the mainstream ECUSA, consubstantiation is the dominant belief.

I really enjoy the universality of the Catholic Church, I must say.

Why is the word not in current use?

Edited October 7, 2008 by she_who_is_not

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='she_who_is_not' post='1672097' date='Oct 7 2008, 03:10 PM']Many Anglo-catholics do believe in transubstantiation. It is not a required belief and other Anglicans reject the idea. However, my knowledge is based merely upon personal experience.
The 39 Articles reject the idea, however, the Articles are non-binding.

However, in the mainstream ECUSA, consubstantiation is the dominant belief.

I really enjoy the universality of the Catholic Church, I must say.

Why is the word not in current use?[/quote]

Yeah, I was raised Lutheran believing in consubstantiation, though I'm not sure that I have any memory of that word until about three or four years ago when I started reading more into differences in theology.

I imagine there are several reasons for letting "transubstantiation" fall to the wayside. I speculate one reason is few laypeople know what the word means. Whenever you see it used in pop culture, it's usually part of a joke alluding to an out-of-grasp intellectual knowledge that means nothing in one's heart. However, referring to the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity," while also a mouthful, can at least draw us into the mystery and tell us "what" Holy Communion actually is.

I mean, if you were saying a prayer of thanksgiving following Communion, can you picture yourself looking up at the crucifix with adoring eyes to pray, "I love transubstantiation!"

Another reason, which I've read recently, is simply ecumenical. The Orthodox never adopted this word, preferring to leave the change of bread and wine into Body and Blood up to mystery, so in the interest of shedding those unnecessary elements of our faith that only stand in the way of increasing unity, the Church is seeking to embrace more of the mystery that the East preserved much better than we did.

Of course, this doesn't mean the Church no longer believes in it, and it's clear from the meaning of the word that the Orthodox also believe in transubstantiation, but the word itself is unecessary to describe and teach the underlying doctrine. Bottom line is, there are probably better ways for laypeople to learn about the Eucharist and pass the teaching along to their children, along with the heartfelt devotion that is necessary for the grace received in Communion to produce good works.

Edited October 8, 2008 by LouisvilleFan