Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

==History==
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has been believed since very ancient times. Early Christian writers referred to the Eucharistic elements as Jesus's body and the blood.<ref name="suffer1" /><ref name="suffer2" />

The short document known as the ''Teachings of the Apostles'' or ''[[Didache]]'', which may be the earliest Christian document outside of the [[New Testament]] to speak of the Eucharist, says, "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, 'Give not that which is holy to the dogs'."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html|title=The Didache|website=www.earlychristianwritings.com |access-date=2017-11-12}}</ref>
[[File:Eucharistic bread.jpg|thumb|right|A 3rd-century fresco in the [[Catacomb of Callixtus]], interpreted by the archaeologist Joseph Wilpert as showing on the left Jesus multiplying bread and fish, a symbol of the Eucharistic consecration, and on the right a representation of the deceased, who through participation in the Eucharist has obtained eternal happiness<ref>{{Cite web|title=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Symbols of the Eucharist|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05590a.htm|access-date=2017-05-31}}</ref>]]

[[Ignatius of Antioch]], writing in about AD 106 to the Roman Christians, says: "I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of [[David]] and [[Abraham]]; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-roberts.html|title=Ignatius to the Romans|website=www.earlychristianwritings.com |access-date=2017-11-12}}</ref>

Writing to the Christians of [[Smyrna]] in the same year, he warned them to "stand aloof from such heretics", because, among other reasons, "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."<ref name=suffer1>{{cite web|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-roberts.html|title=CHURCH FATHERS: Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans|website=www.earlychristianwritings.com |access-date=2017-11-12}}</ref>

In about 150, [[Justin Martyr]], referring to the Eucharist, wrote in his [[First Apology of Justin Martyr|First Apology]]: "Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html|title=Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)|website=www.earlychristianwritings.com |access-date=2017-11-12}}</ref>

In about AD 200, [[Tertullian]] wrote: "Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as [[Marcion of Sinope|Marcion]] might say) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm|title=CHURCH FATHERS: Against Marcion, Book IV (Tertullian)|website=www.newadvent.org}}</ref>

The ''[[Apostolic Constitutions]]'' (compiled {{circa|380}}) says: "Let the bishop give the oblation, saying, The [[body of Christ]]; and let him that receiveth say, Amen. And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, The [[blood of Christ]], the cup of life; and let him that drinketh say, Amen."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.ix.ii.html|title=ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily – Christian Classics Ethereal Library|website=www.ccel.org}}</ref>

[[Ambrose]] of Milan (died 397) wrote:
{{Quote|Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?"&nbsp;... Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.&nbsp;... For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements?&nbsp;... Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: "This Is My Body." Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body ''is signified''. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.<ref name=suffer2>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm|title=Church Fathers: On the Mysteries (St. Ambrose)|website=New Advent}}</ref>|author=|title=|source=}}

Other fourth-century Christian writers say that in the Eucharist there occurs a "change",<ref>Cyril of Jerusalem, ''Cat. Myst.,'' 5, 7 (Patrologia Graeca 33:1113): {{lang|grc|μεταβολή}}</ref> "transelementation",<ref>Gregory of Nyssa, ''Oratio catechetica magna'', 37 (PG 45:93): {{lang|grc|μεταστοιχειώσας}}</ref> "transformation",<ref>John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the betrayal of Judas, 6 (PG 49:380): {{lang|grc|μεταρρύθμησις}}</ref> "transposing",<ref>Cyril of Alexandria, On Luke, 22, 19 (PG 72:911): {{lang|grc|μετίτησις}}</ref> "alteration"<ref>John Damascene, On the orthodox faith, book 4, chapter 13 (PG 49:380): {{lang|grc|μεταποίησις}}</ref> of the bread into the body of Christ.

[[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] declares that the bread consecrated in the Eucharist actually "becomes" (in Latin, ''fit'') the Body of Christ: "The faithful know what I'm talking about; they know Christ in the breaking of bread. It isn't every loaf of bread, you see, but the one receiving Christ's blessing, that becomes the body of Christ."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=A2GyOPOqp-4C ''Sermons (230-272B) on the Liturgical Seasons'' (New City Press 1994), p. 37]; original text in [https://books.google.com/books?id=_P5Win6wF0wC Migne, ''Patrologia latina'', vol. 38, col. 1116]</ref>

In the 9th century, [[Charles the Bald]] posed two unclearly formulated questions: whether the faithful receive the body of Christ in [[Sacred mysteries|mystery]] or in truth and whether the body is the same that was born of Mary and suffered on the cross. [[Ratramnus]] understood "in truth" to mean simply "what is perceptible to the senses", "plain unvarnished reality" ({{lang|la|rei manifestae demonstratio}}), and declared that the consecration leaves the bread and wine unchanged in their outward appearance and thus, insofar as these are signs of the body and blood of Christ hidden under the veil of the signs, the faithful receive the body of Christ not {{lang|la|in veritate}}, but {{lang|la|in figura, in mysterio, in virtute}} (figure, mystery, power). Ratramnus opposed Capharnaitic tendencies but in no way betrayed a symbolist understanding such as that of 11th-century Berengarius.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Höfer |first1=Josef |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gYXYAAAAMAAJ |title=Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche |last2=Rahner |first2=Karl |date=1963 |publisher=Herder |at=col. 1001 |language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=McCracken |first=George E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m9j6AgAAQBAJ |title=Early Medieval Theology |date=1956-01-02 |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |isbn=978-0-664-23083-8 |pages=92 |language=en}}</ref> Radbertus, on the other hand, developed the realism of the Gallican and Roman liturgy and the [[Ambrose|Ambrosian]] theology of the identity of the sacramental and historical body of the Lord. The dispute ended with Radbertus's letter to Frudiger, in which he stressed further the identity of the sacramental and historical body of Christ, but met the opposing view to the extent of emphasizing the spiritual nature of the sacramental body.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Höfer |first1=Josef |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qn_YAAAAMAAJ |title=Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche |last2=Rahner |first2=Karl |date=1957 |publisher=Herder |at=Vol. 1, col. 33 |language=de}}</ref> Friedrich Kempf comments: "Since Paschasius had identified the Eucharistic and the historical body of the Lord without more precisely explaining the Eucharistic species, his teaching could and probably did promote a grossly materialistic 'Capharnaitic' interpretation".<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Jedin |first1=Hubert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rq4lAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA467 |title=Handbook of Church History: The church in the age of Feudalism, by F. Kempf, and others |last2=Dolan |first2=John Patrick |date=1969 |publisher=Burns & Oates |pages=467 |language=en}}</ref>

The question of the nature of the Eucharist became virulent for a second time in the [[Western Church]] in the 11th century, when [[Berengar of Tours]] denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic presence. This caused a controversy which led to the explicit clarification of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.<ref>"Berengar of Tours". In ''Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church''. Oxford University Press. 2005. {{ISBN|978-0-19-280290-3}}.</ref>

In 1215, the [[Fourth Lateran Council]] used the word ''transubstantiated'' in its profession of faith, when speaking of the change that takes place in the Eucharist.

It was only later in the 13th century that [[Aristotelian metaphysics]] was accepted and a philosophical elaboration in line with that metaphysics was developed, which found classic formulation in the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas.<ref name="ODCC">"Transubstantiation". In ''Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church''. Oxford University Press. 2005. {{ISBN|978-0-19-280290-3}}.</ref> It was only then that [[Scholasticism]] cast Christian theology in the terms of [[Aristotelianism]]. The metaphysical aspects of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist were firstly described since the time of the Latin juvenile treatise titled {{lang|la|De venerabili sacramento altaris}} (On the reverend sacrament of the altar).<ref>{{cite book|title=De venerabili sacramento altaris nec non de expositione missae|language=la|author = St Thomas Aquinas|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26191510|oclc=989096548|access-date=November 26, 2020}}</ref>

During the later medieval period, the question was debated within the Western Church. Following the [[Protestant Reformation]], it became a central topic of division amongst the various emerging confessions. The [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] doctrine of the real presence, known as the "[[sacramental union]]", was formulated in the [[Augsburg Confession]] of 1530. Luther decidedly supported this doctrine, publishing ''[[The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics]]'' in 1526. Saying that "bread and body are two distinct substances", he declared that "out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a 'sacramental union{{'"}}.<ref>''Weimar Ausgabe'' 26, 442.23; ''Luther's Works'' 37, 299–300.</ref>

Thus, the main theological division in this question, turned out to be not between Catholicism and Protestantism, but within Protestantism, especially between [[Martin Luther|Luther]] and [[Zwingli]], who discussed the question at the [[Marburg Colloquy]] of 1529 but who failed to come to an agreement. Zwingli's view became associated with the term [[Memorialism]], suggesting an understanding of the Eucharist held purely "in memory of" Christ. While this accurately describes the position of the [[Anabaptists]] and derived traditions, it is not the position held by Zwingli himself, who affirmed that Christ is ''truly'' (in substance), though not ''naturally'' (physically) present in the sacrament.<ref>{{cite book |last=Riggs |first=John |year=2015 |title=The Lord's Supper in the Reformed Tradition |location=Louisville, Kentucky |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |page=74}}</ref>

The position of the Church of England on this matter (the real presence) is clear and highlighted in the [[Thirty-nine Articles of Religion]]:
{{quote|The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves; but rather is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to those who rightly and with faith, receive the same, the bread that we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. [[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 the Sacrament and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an Heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped.|Articles of Religion No.28 "The Lord's Supper": ''Book of Common Prayer'' 1662}}

The [[Council of Trent]], held 1545–1563 in reaction to the Protestant Reformation and initiating the Catholic [[Counter-Reformation]], promulgated the view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as true, real, and substantial, and declared that, "by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance ({{lang|la|substantia}}) of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation".<ref name="Trent"/> The [[Scholasticism|Scholastic]], Aristotelian philosophy of substance was not included in the Council's definitive teaching, but rather the more general idea of "substance" that had predated [[Thomas Aquinas]].<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>

[[Eastern Orthodoxy]] did not become involved in the dispute prior to the 17th century. It became virulent in 1629, when [[Cyril Lucaris]] denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, using the Greek translation {{lang|grc-Latn|[[metousiosis]]}} for the concept. To counter the teaching of Lucaris, Metropolitan [[Petro Mohyla]] of Kiev drew up in Latin an Orthodox Confession in defense of transubstantiation. This Confession was approved by all the Greek-speaking Patriarchs (those of [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|Constantinople]], [[Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria|Alexandria]], [[Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch|Antioch]], and [[Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem|Jerusalem]]) in 1643, and again by the 1672 [[Synod of Jerusalem (1672)|Synod of Jerusalem]] (also referred to as the Council of Bethlehem).