When do you think it was formed.

When Peter was given the keys of the church that Jesus had instituted on earth....

 

The doctrine of Transubstantiation began much earlier, as witnessed by these quotations from Ignatius of Antioch:

Similarly, the Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary dates back to the 3rd or 4th Century, although it wasn't made official dogma until the 20th Century. Don't have time to look that one up right now.

Most of these doctrines subsisted in the Church since the earliest of times, although they were only made official dogma much later. This would be in the same way that Southern Baptists have from beginning opposed adultry, homosexuality and pornography, although they saw no need to make this a part of their official confession of faith until 2000.

 

It seems that the OP is questioning the things that make the RC of today or when it was given its distinctiveness it has today. You would have to do a liturgical study of the practices of the essentials of the RC church. Certainly if you compare with the OC there are significant differences. The question is when were these germane differences incorporated? Some before 1054. Like I mentioned before Victor the I would have started the consept of the Monarchial Episcopate but it gained in power with Leo and who could have blamed the people. He was the only official who stood up to the huns. Gregory solidified more of his control and established certain modern aspects of liturgy. Certainly the reformation caused changes to the Catholic Church. So what specifically is being asked? When was it first called Roman Catholic?

 

I'm not sure though that what Ignatius is describing there amounts to full-blown transubstantiation as the RCC understands that today. Real Presence, yes, transubstantiation, not sure.

But the Orthodox Church(es) don't believe in it, which would suggest that it wasn't universally held as any kind of dogma prior to the Great Schism.

 

I would agree Matt...It's my understanding that the term "Transubstantiation" was born out of the Reformation, when the RCC had to answer the reformers.

As an Orthodox Christian, we believe in the Real Presence and we haven't went to the extremes as that of the RCC has to try and explain this mystery.

Again I would agree, we Orthodox remember Mary's death (a physical death), with the Dormition Fast, which we will remember latter this summer.

In XC
-

 

Also note that transubstantiation is a direct to philisophical views purported by Thomas Aquinas who used platonic termanology to explain issues. When we think of substance it refers specifically to the reality behind the observation. Ie the caverns of Socraties. Thus Substance would be the reality behind the shadows on the cave wall. Or the men outside walking in the sun light whose shadows are cast on the inner cave wall. But the accidens are the forms themselves or the shadows in the cave that are observed by the observer. Ie matter. Thus when the Catholic talks about Transubstantiation they are saying the truth behind the forms or behind the accidens have been changed. The accidents themselves have stayed the same. Thus the "eucharist" is still has the properties of bread and can mold etc... Yet the truth behind the shadows or the substance has changed. Now these terms are applied to how Aquinas would have thought of them. I'm not certain how the Orthodox view it. But one thing I know is that Aquinas was Western European and specifically Roman Catholic. Orthodox I don't think try to explain how its operation works (but even in this Aquinas view it really doesn't explain it either just how it is in their view using latin terms borrowed from the Greeks. This is a key difference however. The Catholics believe when the priest intones the words of Christ the "transsubstance" occures. The Orthodox figures it happes during or throughout the whole service. How would Ignatius have viewed it? Don't really know. Though I don't think transsubstance is that far off. The Orthodox just keep it as a "mystery" in other words "I dont' know" the Catholics are saying somewhat the samething but have added a philisophical element to it. Anyway thats my best summation of it.

 

Almost right; transubstantiation owes as much to Aristotelean philosophy as it does to Scripture. The likes of Augustine may have been influenced by Platonic (and other kinds of) dualism; by Aquinas' time, Aristotle was the 'must have' Greek philisopher du jour

 

Very likely.

 

Easy enough answer, and as you can see the gates of hades as not wiped it out yet, and as Jesus promised the Church will be here until the last day when Jesus comes to claim his Bride, also part of the Catholic Church are those in the Protestant Churches who believe in him. Catholic means universal, and before any split there was only one Church!

Peter's Confession of Christ
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.