(epistemaniac;65364)
just a clarification... the Apostles did not write "Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist) ...." "It is an anonymous work not belonging to any single individual...." (wikipedia)in response to the question Maybe because all the theology that Rome now pours into the Lord's Supper, eg transubstantiation, did not exist in the early church in any codified way until much laterin church history... i any case, it certainly was not dogma, ie that which MUST be believed, as it is currently within Rome, until much later in church history."The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133) in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". The Council of Trent (December 13, 1545) defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation", This Council thus officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding the literal truth of Christ's Presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. (wikipedia)Certainly some form of celebration of the Lord's Supper has happened throughout church history, but this is not the same thing as saying that the Roman Catholic version or understanding of the Lord's Supper is that which has always taken place in church history. This is clearly not the case, if it was, it would not have taken so long for dogma to be pronounced by Rome on this issue.blessings,ken
The authoriship of the Didache has been debated from the 2nd century forward. However in the earliest debates we note that even the people saying none of the 12 actually wrote it they ALL agreed the teachings in it were in agreement with Apostolic teachings, the debates were about whether it was actually written by an apostle or several, because some wanted it included in a canon of such writings. You are correct there is no proof an Apostle wrote it, but then neither is there proof they did not. However even more important there is no proof of anyone disagreeing with the teachings in it until nearly 1500 years later.to fully understand the development of dogma one must understand that it does not occur magically over night and official statments as the one mentioned above in 1545 are usually the reult of someone attacking WHAT IS ALREADY BELIEVED. In that case the Church of England (Anglican's) was working on changing what was already believed about the Sacrament, not changing it.People make the same mistake pointing to the Church's announcement at the same council in 1546 regarding the Canon. The Church did not change it's canon in 1546, they defended the one they already had held for well over a thousand years against people that wanted to change it.