Transubstantiation

[jezic]

We did have a nice conversation going in Mariolatry,

well she asked about this and so here is a topic.

She can start before we get the theological dissertations.

[Priscilla]

Oh well thanks Jezic but I think my questions have all been answered now!

Just that on another forum I visit the Mods can parsate threads to keep them on topic. I was quite happy for it to be in the Mary thread - but never mind.

I don't know what else to ask. I think we're in more agreement than we think.

It was just that one of my posts (in the Closed Table thread which has also touched on transubstantiation) got me to thinking that the early church broke bread "from house to house" - no Catholic priests were there, or tinkling bells or incense: just ordinary people remembering the Lord in the breaking of bread from hosue to house.

In a book I have called "The Path to Rome" one of the writers (Keith Jarret) mocks the prots for "breaking of bread" - but I do not know why he has to do this? What's wrong with it? It is what the very earliest Chrsitians did, before they even knew anything about "transubstantiation".

[Paphnutius]

Just to stir the pot, we believe that Christ instituted the Eucharist and priesthood at the Last Supper (to my knowledge at least). So yes there were priests and the Mass at that time.

[FutureSoror]

Right, the Apostles were the first bishops, and they ordained priests. Masses were celebrated by the priests and bishops. Yes, they were celebrated at people's houses at first, because the church was under persecution in those early years. I don't know if incense was used then, but I'd be willing to believe that it wasn't. The liturgy we know has developed over time, but the main essential parts have stayed the same.

[Priscilla]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 14 2005, 05:09 PM'] Just to stir the pot, we believe that Christ instituted the Eucharist and priesthood at the Last Supper (to my knowledge at least). So yes there were priests and the Mass at that time. [/quote]
I thought someone would say that!

However, I do not see that any priests were ordained for the daily breaking of bread from house to house.

There were three thousand of them initially (Acts 2:41-47)

[jezic]

did you read my reply from the other post?

It was about how people did remember it. We can still do that. Our meal can be a remembrance. The difference is that now there is the Mass and the actual transformation of the bread into the Body. The Mass started then but was not as wide-spread immediately.

Then the bread was still bread (it would be as well if you just remembered the Last Supper in our time). Today(during the mass.) it is changed at the very center of being into the Body. Then wine was still wine, but now after the Institution, It is the Blood.

[DianJo]

[quote name='jezic' date='Apr 14 2005, 05:57 PM']
Then the bread was still bread (it would be as well if you just remembered the Last Supper in our time). Today(during the mass.) it is changed at the very center of being into the Body. Then wine was still wine, but now after the Institution, It is the Blood. [/quote]
Whoa, Whoa!! The bread was not just bread back then! The theology of the transubstantiation was in use at the time - the [u]word[/u] Transubstantiation was developed at the Council of Trent to help explain what happens to the bread and wine but it was always believed that the bread and wine changed to the Body and Blood of Jesus!

As early as the first century, people like Igantius and Justin wrote descriptions of the early Mass and most all of the elements of todays Mass are present. I just read Ignatius' account to my 10th grade CCD class. Justin wrote on his way to Rome to be martryed because he wanted to clear up a misunderstanding about the Christians "eating flesh" ( being cannibals) - he explains how the bread and wine are changed to become the Body and Blood of Jesus. This theology was held by all of the early church fathers.

The priesthood was instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper by the command for the Apostles to "do this in rememberance of Me." They could not DO THIS unless Jesus made it possible for them TO do this. He made it their job to DO THIS.

It was the Apostles and those they ordained that were officiating at these Masses in the homes. It was not just anyone that could officiate, the people went to the Apostles to hold Masses in their homes. There were no churches as we know them, the synagogues were being used on Sundays to do Christian worship (Mass). At that time, the Jewish Christians were also going to their Jewish services on Saturdays as well. After the destruction of the Temple and the persecutions were in full force and Christianity and Judaism completely separted from each other did the Masses start going to the individual homes.

[jezic]

[quote name='DianJo' date='Apr 15 2005, 11:47 AM'] Whoa, Whoa!! The bread was not just bread back then! The theology of the transubstantiation was in use at the time - the [u]word[/u] Transubstantiation was developed at the Council of Trent to help explain what happens to the bread and wine but it was always believed that the bread and wine changed to the Body and Blood of Jesus!

As early as the first century, people like Igantius and Justin wrote descriptions of the early Mass and most all of the elements of todays Mass are present. I just read Ignatius' account to my 10th grade CCD class. Justin wrote on his way to Rome to be martryed because he wanted to clear up a misunderstanding about the Christians "eating flesh" ( being cannibals) - he explains how the bread and wine are changed to become the Body and Blood of Jesus. This theology was held by all of the early church fathers.

The priesthood was instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper by the command for the Apostles to "do this in rememberance of Me." They could not DO THIS unless Jesus made it possible for them TO do this. He made it their job to DO THIS.

It was the Apostles and those they ordained that were officiating at these Masses in the homes. It was not just anyone that could officiate, the people went to the Apostles to hold Masses in their homes. There were no churches as we know them, the synagogues were being used on Sundays to do Christian worship (Mass). At that time, the Jewish Christians were also going to their Jewish services on Saturdays as well.  After the destruction of the Temple and the persecutions were in full force and Christianity and Judaism completely separted from each other did the Masses start going to the individual homes. [/quote]
dude, your missing what i was saying.

If you were to celebrate a remembrance without a priest type person, the bread would remain bread. THe early Christians many times remembered the Last Supper at each meal. Often time in the early days there were not "priests" who knew the actual ritual to perform it. THis did not constitute the Eucharist. I fully believe in the consecration.

Priscilla earlier made a point about how they broke bread in their homes. They did. THat is not false. We believe though that the prayer of Consecration and a person ordained by the church is required for the Eucharist in its fullness to be present.

Edited April 15, 2005 by jezic

[DianJo]

Oops! Sorry, I guess I misread your post. Iunderstand what you were saying now - sorry 'bout that!

I do have a question though:
I am unaware of any writings or beliefs that the Lord's Supper was ever celebrated strictly as a rememberance. Can you provide a source, please?

Oh, and BTW, I'm a dudette!

[jezic]

[quote name='DianJo' date='Apr 15 2005, 01:40 PM'] Oops! Sorry, I guess I misread your post. Iunderstand what you were saying now - sorry 'bout that!

I do have a question though:
I am unaware of any writings or beliefs that the Lord's Supper was ever celebrated strictly as a rememberance. Can you provide a source, please?

Oh, and BTW, I'm a dudette! [/quote]
It is alright.

Dude can be used for both guys and girls.

The source might not exist in print. It is more of a guess that i have based on the likelihood of that happening. The disciples were not widespread for a while after the resurrection. The people likely would have done this. It is only probable case and thus can't be regarded as fact, but it is highly likely it occurred.

It wouldn't be a bad thing either. Just one of the traditions.

I guess on a person note i would have done it, i still do sometimes so maybe that is why i think it happened.

It is basically remembering scripture.

[DianJo]

Ok, jezic. I understand, it's just your opinion. I don't think I agree with you on that although I don't have anything readily available to dispute it as fact.

Thanks for the explanation!

[jezic]

off topic, but is there anything to dispute?

It likely happened, it wouldn't be bad if it did because we still have the foundation of the Eucharist. This might still happen today in some areas, that isn't really a problem either as long as one understands the difference between a meal and the Mass.

[jezic]

is there anything else to discuss?