The English Reformation and Transubstantiation

 

                                                                      Introduction: 

Transubstantiation was an important theological position of the Roman Catholic Church. It taught that at the consecration of the elements, the bread and wine used for the Eucharist, become the Body and Blood of Christ. While taught by the Fourth Lateran Council, this position remained controversial---especially during the later Protestant Reformation. 

Before we understand why Transubstantiation was controversial though, it is important that we examine the Eucharist as it was understood and practiced in the early church. By understanding the role of the Eucharist in early Christianity, it can help critique later positions that developed in Christendom. 

To begin with, many early Christians took the words of Jesus literally in Mark 14: 22-24. Likewise, they understood the Eucharist to give grace to those who received it worthily. The latter position was based on their understanding of Paul's warning to those who take from the table unworthily (1 Corinthians 11: 23-25). The Romans who practiced the gods of the empire, however, could not understand why Christians desired the flesh of Jesus. To them, the Christians must be cannibals. 

Although some modern evangelical theologians have interpreted the early church fathers to teach memorialism, this is a misreading of the church fathers. While another post could be written all for the topic alone, I strongly believe (as do many historians and theologians) that the vast majority of early church fathers taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Where many evangelicals go wrong is that they will read a passage from scripture or early Christianity that may speak of remembering Christ. However, even Roman Catholics believe that the Mass remembers what Christ did. It is a logical fallacy to assume from a text in scripture or church history that because something says about remembering Christ at the Lord's Table that it means nothing else than that. For example, though many early church fathers describe the Eucharist as being a memorial towards their Savior, they never say that it is simply that. Indeed, had Paul the Apostle believed that Jesus was merely speaking in parables it is hard to imagine why he would have understood the Eucharist to be so serious (1 Corinthians 11: 23-25). On the contrary, some of the earliest Christians spoke of the Eucharist being a ''sacrifice'' and how they ate the flesh of Christ: 

''A marvellous thing in truth, that God rained manna for our fathers. Yet they who ate that bread died in the wilderness. But the Bread which thou recievest, that living Bread which came down from heaven, supplieth the substance of life eternal: it is the Body of Christ''-Saint Ambrose of Milan (Baverstock, A. H. The Eucharistic Year, 1930, p. 91).

''When the sacrifice is being offered, and Christ becometh our sacrifice when thou seest the curtains drawn at the doors (of the iconostasis) consider that high heaven is drawn down, and the Angels descend''-Saint John Chrysostom ( p. 96). 

No question, the Eucharist was highly regarded by the early church fathers. That said, I think that there are strong reasons to believe that the church did not historically teach Trent's dogmatic understanding of Transubstantiation. Among these reasons, it is important to recognize that the early Christians did not universally believe that Christ's literal Body and Blood are present during Communion (though nearly of all them did agree with the belief of His real presence). 

''Thou hast prepared meat for them. A spiritual meat is understood. He saith that this hath been prepared, since before the foundation of the world was fore-ordained the mystery of Christ, who is the living Bread coming down from heaven and giving life to the world.'' -Origen of Alexandria (p. 95). 

So before we evaluate the doctrine of transubstantiation in light of the English Reformation, let me summarize the above information that I have provided. Early Christianity took the Eucharist to be Christ's Body and Blood (some literal, others spiritual, though hardly none understood it as just memorial). The Eucharist was central to early Christian practice and would serve as a foundation for much of later Medieval Christianity. 

                                        II. Transubstantiation in Medieval Christianity

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was widely accepted long after the first three centuries of Christianity. The fact that it was hardly challenged is further evidence of its orthodoxy. This does not mean, however, that the idea of Transubstantiation was universally accepted across Christendom. 

The doctrine of Transubstantiation was not formally taught by a church council until 1215. Even then, the Fourth Lateran Council defined it in ways that would be less offensive to Protestants than how the Council of Trent would define it in the sixteenth century. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council never taught that Christ's Divinity and Soul are present within the Eucharist. Despite the fact that some Protestants may have other issues with the Lateran Council's understanding of the Eucharist, their objections would be mild compared to what Trent would later teach: 

''There is one Universal Church of the faithful outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transubstantiation) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us.'' -Fourth Lateran Council, Can I.  

During the Counter-Reformation, the Council of Trent made Transubstantiation dogma: 

''If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently, the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.'' -Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Canon 1. 

Essentially, the Council of Trent ordered for the excommunication of anyone who denied its teaching. It also taught doctrines such as the Divinity and Soul of Christ being present in Holy Communion despite the fact that no one in church history taught these teachings for the first eight centuries of the church's existence. 

But what evidence is there to show that Trent's understanding of Transubstantiation was never taught in the church's history. Surely, after all, Rome would not force a dogmatic teaching concerning something that had not always been taught? Think again. 

                                                        III. The English Reformation 

Among all of the theological differences between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation era, the debate over the Mass was among the most heated. For at the core of Transubstantiation was a reliance upon the priesthood of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is because Rome understood only ordained clergy as having the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. To the Roman Catholic, pastors and priests not ordained by a bishop were invalid. As a result, Rome believed that many Protestants who followed Protestant Reformers who had no apostolic succession, could not obtain absolution for their mortal sins. While many of the reformers were former Catholic priests, not all of them were. For example, John Calvin had never been ordained by a bishop. Furthermore, few bishops sided with the cause of the Reformation. This in turn, would mean that former Catholic priests could not carry on priestly powers to their successors. 

In England, things were a little bit different than elsewhere in Europe. For example, many clergy within the Church of England came to accept at least some of the Protestant ideas after Henry VIII's breach from Rome in 1534. Nevertheless, like those in Continental Europe, those supporting the English Reformation took great issues with Transubstantiation. Indeed, Thomas Cranmer considered the debate over the Mass to be the most important issue of the Reformation. 

Contrary to the claims of many Catholic apologists, transubstantiation was not the universally accepted position concerning the Eucharist before the Reformation. The supporters of Rome have done a good job at portraying the Reformation as a radical movement that abolished the historic practice of viewing the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ---so they say. Interestingly enough, many before the sixteenth century had denied Transubstantiation. Among theologians who denied it included William of Ockham, John Wycliffe, and Jan Huss. 

Those in England during the Elizabethan era were aware of the fact that not all of Christendom had taught Transubstantiation in past centuries. Especially before the Fourth Lateran Council, there had been several different views concerning the Holy Eucharist in the early Middle Ages. 

Archbishop Matthew Parker approved of The Thirty-Nine Articles which denied Transubstantiation in canon XXVIII. Parker, who was an avid reader of Anglo-Saxon literature, looked to the English Church before the Norman Conquest as a type of a pre-Anglican Church. He was aware of how many practices in England had changed as a result of the Norman Conquest. Among these changes had included the English Church coming more under the thumb of the papacy, the gradual suppression of the Bible in English (though there were some examples of Middle English translations before Wycliffe), and the gradual acceptance of Roman doctrine. From a sermon by Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham, Parker felt that the ancient English church had never taught Transubstantiation at all. I encourage you to read the sermon here: 

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26478.0001.001/1:3?rgn=div1;view=fulltext&fbclid=IwAR1dtrLA43fspsbiK7wCzg8u21pOHTr60P7xIqB2HheNK3a64ILPYadlX7k

                                                                   IV: Conclusion

Transubstantiation does not equate with believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When one reads the early church fathers, for example, one should not so easily conclude that they taught Transubstantiation because many of them understood the Eucharist to be the literal Flesh and Blood of Christ. Furthermore, while some of the church fathers did describe a change of elements as having taken place at Mass, none of the ancient councils ever held Transubstantiation as dogma. Likewise, when it was taught at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the medieval council did not have the same understanding of it as did Trent. 

At the same time, I look forward to hearing counter-arguments from my Roman Catholic friends. My issue with Trent's dogma of Transubstantiation is less with the ideas that this doctrine proposes than that of it being a dogma for all Christians to believe. On the other hand, though, I believe that Transubstastion is trying to explain the miracle at the Eucharistic table which no one can perfectly explain. I prefer to see the Eucharist more as a mystery, at least as concerns dogma. While in my view, good Christians can believe in Transubstantiation, it should not be dogma as Trent understood it. 

Further Sources: 

Baverstock, A. H. (1930). The Eucharistic Year. Morehouse Publishing. 

Haigh, Christopher. (1993). English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors. Clarendon Press. 

Ruud, J. (2006). Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature by Ja Ruud. Facts on File.