Historical Origins of Transubstantiation Belief
The doctrine of transubstantiation, which posits a change in the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist, is a point of significant historical and theological contention among Christian traditions [5].
The Roman Catholic Church, particularly through the scholastic theology of figures like Thomas Aquinas, affirms transubstantiation. Aquinas addressed the mechanism of this change, arguing against the idea that any created power in the words of consecration causes the transubstantiation, instead attributing it to divine power [2]. This view holds that after consecration, Christ's body and blood are truly present, hidden under the "species" (appearances) of bread and wine, even though their color, taste, and other sensory properties remain unchanged [5, 7].
In contrast, Reformed traditions, represented by figures like John Calvin, explicitly reject transubstantiation. Calvin argued that the concept "overthrows the nature of a sacrament" and is not supported by early Church Fathers such as Ambrose and Augustine [1, 11]. He contended that while Christ is truly present in the Supper, this presence is spiritual and not a physical change of the elements themselves [9]. Charles Hodge, one theologian from the Old Princeton tradition, further asserted that transubstantiation is "utterly unscriptural and false" and that the worship of the consecrated elements, if transubstantiation is false, constitutes idolatry [6, 10]. Hodge also noted that Protestants generally distinguish transubstantiation from consubstantiation, a term sometimes used to describe the Lutheran view of Christ's presence "in, with, and under" the elements, though he questioned its propriety for Luther's doctrine [8].
The Anglican tradition, as articulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, also rejects transubstantiation. Article 272 states that transubstantiation "cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions" [3].
Early Church Fathers are often cited by various traditions to support or refute transubstantiation. Calvin, for instance, believed that Ambrose and Augustine were opposed to the doctrine [1]. However, other patristic writings, such as those of Tertullian, discuss "mutations" or changes, which some interpret as laying groundwork for later sacramental theology, though not explicitly defining transubstantiation as it later developed [4]. The divergence among traditions often stems from differing interpretations of biblical passages concerning the Last Supper and the nature of Christ's presence, as well as distinct understandings of the role of the senses in discerning spiritual realities [6, 10].
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 99: substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ called? The change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is called Transubstantiation. 637 Compare together Ambrose on those who are initiated in the sacraments (cap. 9) and Augustine, De Trinitate, Lib. 3 cap. 10, and it will be seen that both are opposed to transubstantiation. 638 132 D132 Calvin, though tactfully refraining from any mention of Luther (whom he held in high regard), obviously has reference to that view of th”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of the Form of This Sacrament, Art. 4: Article: Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power which causes the consecration? I answer that, Some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown above (Question [62], Article [1]), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts from the dignity of the sacram”
- Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican) “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican, 1571), Section 272: 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 a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. II. --THE LAW OF CHANGE, OR MUTATION, (part 3): their mutations, from Ninus the progeny of Belus, onwards; if indeed Ninus was the first to have a kingdom, as the ancient profane authorities assert. Beyond his time the pen is not wont (to travel), in general, among you (heathens). From the Assyrians, it may be, the histories of "recorded time"[1] begin to open. We, however, who are habitual readers of divine histories, are masters of the subject from the nativity of the universe[2] itself. But I prefer, at the present time, jo”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 99: remained only the appearances of bread and wine. 349. What do we mean by the appearances of bread and wine? By the appearances of bread and wine we mean their color, taste, weight, shape, and whatever else appears to the senses. 350. What is the change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ called? The change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is called Transubstantiation. for which they fight more fiercely in the present day than for all the othe”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 72: his soul and divinity be no more present in it than in other bread, then they must admit that the worship of the host is as pure and simple idolatry as the world has ever seen. As all Protestants believe the doctrine of transubstantiation to be utterly unscriptural and false, they are unanimous in pronouncing the worship of the consecrated elements to be idolatry. Proof of the Doctrine. The arguments urged by Romanists in support of the fearful dogma of transubstantiation, are derived partly from Scripture and partly from tradition. Witho”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 99: no other presence there than that of abode. But, whatever be the terms in which they attempt to make a gloss, the sum of all is, that that which was formerly bread, by consecration becomes Christ: so that Christ thereafter lies hid under the colour of bread. This they are not ashamed distinctly to express. For Lombard’s words are, “The body of Christ, which is visible in itself, lurks and lies covered after the 2566 act of consecration under the species of bread” (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 12). Thus the figure of the bread is not”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 71: is due, not to the words of consecration as uttered by the minister, but to the almighty power which 672 attended the original utterance of the words, This is my body, and continues to operate whenever and wherever this sacrament is administered. This presence of the body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine has been generally expressed by non-Lutherans by the word consubstantiation, as distinguished from the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. The propriety of this word to express the doctrine of Luther is admitt”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 99: sense; first, in himself, as he is God; and, secondly, by transfusing it into the flesh which he assumed, that he might thereby communicate life to us. 9. This confirmed from Cyril, and by a familiar example. How the flesh of Christ gives life, and what the nature of our communion with Christ. 10. No distance of place can impede it. In the Supper it is not presented as an empty symbol, but, as the apostle testifies, we receive the reality. Objection, that the expression is figurative. Answer. A sure rule with regard to the sacramen”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 22: § 7. Office of the Senses in Matters of Faith. The question, What authority is due to the senses in matters of faith, arose out of the controversy between Romanists and Protestants. The doctrine of transubstantiation, as taught by the Romish Church, contradicts the testimony of our senses of sight, taste, and touch. It was natural for Protestants to appeal to this contradiction as decisive evidence against the doctrine. Romanists 60 reply by denying the competency of the senses to bear testimony in such cases. Protestants maintain the val”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 99: felt no need of a celestial proximity to Christ. Such was the necessity which impelled them to transfigure the body of Christ. In the age of Bernard, though a harsher mode of speech had prevailed, transubstantiation was not yet recognised. And in all previous ages, the similitude in the mouths of all was, that a spiritual reality was conjoined with bread and wine in this sacrament. As to the terms, they think they answer acutely, though they adduce nothing relevant to the case in hand. The rod of Moses (they say), when turned into ”