What's wrong with faith in real presence? Yes, it was certainly understood that way by much of the early church.Page 1 of 3
Transubstantiation is derived from the Latin term tansubsubstaniato, meaning change of substance. This term was incorporated into the creed of the Forth Latern Council in A.D. 1215.
Transubstantiation is defined by the Roman Catholic Churchs Council of Trent as follows:By the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion (or change) is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance 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.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent expands this belief by stating:In this sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ, and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. It also explains,Christ whole and entire, is contained, not only under either species, but also in each particle of the same species.(Species = bread and wine)
The Church of Rome teaches that when the priest in the Mass blesses the bread, it is no longer bread but Jesus Christ himself and similarly the wine is Jesus Christ himself.
This poses a question? Has this Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation always been taught since the time of the Apostles? Has this doctrine that the bread and wine of communion actually transforms into the actual body of Christ, been understood and accepted by the early Christian laity and Apostles?
It is a matter of faith. I happen to disagree. But so what? No one can prove the other wrong.
Above all, it does not affect the fundamental moral and ethical teachings of Jesus. So why all the fuss?