Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone

The Catholic Thing ^ | 1/21/11 | Francis J. Beckwith

[marshmallow]

The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a real stumbling block to some Protestants who are seriously considering Catholicism. It was for me too, until I explored the subject, historically and scripturally. What follows is a summary of my deliberations.

Catholicism holds that bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated by the priest celebrating the Mass. Oftentimes non-Catholics get hung up on the term transubstantiation, the name for the philosophical theory that the Church maintains best accounts for the change at consecration. The Church’s explanation of transubstantiation was influenced by Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accident.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), like most philosophers of his time, wanted to account for how things change and yet remain the same. So, for example, a “substance” like an oak tree remains the same while undergoing “accidental” changes. It begins as an acorn and eventually develops roots, a trunk, branches, and leaves. During all these changes, the oak tree remains identical to itself. Its leaves change from green to red and brown, and eventually fall off. But these accidental changes occur while the substance of the tree remains.

On the other hand, if we chopped down the tree and turned into a desk, that would be a substantial change, since the tree would literally cease to be and its parts would be turned into something else, a desk. According to the Church, when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance of each changes. So, it looks, tastes, feels, and smells like bread and wine, but it literally has been changed into the body and blood of Christ. That’s transubstantiation.

There are several reasons why it would be a mistake to dismiss transubstantiation simply because of the influence of Aristotle on its formulation. First, Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church rarely employ this Aristotelian language, and yet the Church considers their celebration of the Eucharist perfectly valid. Second, the Catholic Church maintains that the divine liturgies celebrated in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (commonly called “Eastern Orthodoxy”) are perfectly valid as well, even though the Eastern Orthodox rarely employ the term transubstantiation. Third, the belief that the bread and wine are literally transformed into Christ’s body and blood predates Aristotle’s influence on the Church’s theology by over 1000 years. For it was not until the thirteenth century, and the ascendancy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, that Aristotle’s categories were employed by the Church in its account of the Eucharist. In fact, when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) employed the language of substantial change, St. Thomas had not even been born!

It was that third point that I found so compelling and convinced me that the Catholic view of the Eucharist was correct. It did not take long for me to see that Eucharistic realism (as I like to call it) had been uncontroversially embraced deep in Christian history. This is why Protestant historian, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” I found it in many of the works of the Early Church Fathers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 151), St. Cyprian of Carthage, (A. D. 251), First Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), and St. Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 411) . These are, of course, not the only Early Church writings that address the nature of the Eucharist. But they are representative.

This should, however, not surprise us, given what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples (Mt. 26:17-30; Mk. 14:12-25; Lk. 22:7-23), which we commemorate at Holy Communion, he referred to it as a Passover meal. He called the bread and wine his body and blood. In several places, Jesus is called the Lamb of God (John 1: 29, 36; I Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:12). Remember, when the lamb is killed for Passover, the meal participants ingest the lamb. Consequently, St. Paul’s severe warnings about partaking in Holy Communion unworthily only make sense in light of Eucharistic realism (I Cor. 10:14-22; I Cor. 11:17-34). He writes: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? . . . Whoever, therefore eats and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (I Cor. 10:16; 11:27)

In light of all these passages and the fact that Jesus called himself the bread of life (John 6:41-51) and that he said that his followers must “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53), the Eucharistic realism of the Early Church, the Eastern Churches (both in and out of communion with Rome), and the pre-Reformation medieval Church (fifth to sixteenth centuries) seems almost unremarkable. So, what first appeared to be a stumbling block was transformed into a cornerstone.

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University. He tells the story of his journey from Catholicism to Protestantism and back again in his book, Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic. He blogs at Return to Rome.

[caww]

The Bible and Church have always taught we have our sins washed away, receive the Holy Spirit and are placed “in Christ” by baptism.

That's not true...the Bible does not teach we are saved thru Baptism...nor would it.But it is the teaching of the catholic church. However... Even the thief on the cross wasn't Baptized, yet he went to be with Christ that very day. We are saved thru Christ...that's it. Nothing we can do or ritual we perform changes that. He is sufficient, and we are complete in Him.

[boatbums]

the only reason that we can offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God, is we first must be in Christ and united with Him in His Body, the Church. If we are in rebellion to the Body of Christ, God will reject your “living sacrifice”.

What happened? You're the new guy so you got stuck with being the late shift RCC Answer Man???

Here's a clue to what you just spouted. Nobody who is In Christ can be in rebellion "to the body of Christ". It's an impossibility. Let's see if you can figure out why.

[caww]

You need to go back and read peoples posts again...and quit saying people made statements they haven’t made. What they have done is posted that which the catholic doctrines state, from the Vatican. Your arguements are with those in your leadership who are stating these things you acuse me of.

[presently no screen name]

don’t remember......

Perhaps Wiki?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

past my bed time, so this is all for tonight. Acts 22:16, Saul had his sins washed away by baptism. God is the one who does the baptizing, thru the Church, His Body. the thief was saved as everyone who was saved in the OT was. in the NT, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” we must come thru the door established by Jesus, not what seems right to us. again, your way of thinking was unknown for 1,500 years, that should give you pause.

[Quix]

lol.
Rome claims all things for itself.
No surprise its delusions continue far and wide.

INDEED.
Arrogance and pharisees 2000 years ago
did the same or similar things
in the same or similar ways
for the same or similar reasons.

RELIGION--particularly bureaucratic, UNBiblical, man's works oriented RELIGION
is a disease from hell.


RELATIONSHIP is a gift from God, of God, HIMSELF.

[caww]

i know you don’t want to believe it,

You KNOW no such thing..... I have made no statments or comments concerning who determined what were sccriptures or not. Not one comment. So stop saying you know my thoughts...you don't.

[Quix]

Thankfully, the

REAL CHURCH UNIVERSAL

has had only incidental anythings to do with small pockets of believers in the

Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology and Reality Mangling in it’s 1700 year existence.

Otherwise, what a horror to present to the world as “Christianity.”

[Religion Moderator]

you don’t want

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[caww]

For the first time I’m so glad someones going to bed!

Quix, you and others have spent years attempting to let the truth be seen and heard here on FR. Trying to reason with some I’m afraid is a waste of breath...they do not want to know the truth. The walls they out up time and again indicates they are content to remain behind them. What say you?

[boatbums]

I think some people, whenever they see the word “baptism”, think it must always mean water baptism as in the sacrament of “Baptism”. This is a misunderstanding since those who have trusted in Jesus Christ as Savior are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Born of water vs. born of the Spirit. Obviously, a little baby could not understand such things, so this is why the rite of water baptism is reserved for after a profession of faith is made. This is how it was described and taught from the beginning. Those who believed were then water baptized and those who could not be water baptized - like the thief on the cross - were still saved because being baptized in the Spirit happens regardless of outward acts.

[metmom]

past my bed time, so this is all for tonight. Acts 22:16, Saul had his sins washed away by baptism. God is the one who does the baptizing, thru the Church, His Body. the thief was saved as everyone who was saved in the OT was. in the NT, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” we must come thru the door established by Jesus, not what seems right to us. again, your way of thinking was unknown for 1,500 years, that should give you pause.

Except for the pesky detail that for all Catholics castigate non-Catholics for not taking the words of Jesus above other Scripture, they sure are quick enough to elevate anything and everything else above Jesus' own words when it suits their purposes.

Jesus told us time and again to simply believe Him and in Him.

The thief on the cross had no time to be baptized. The tax collector praying at the temple went away justified.

When asked by the Jews what works to do for eternal life, He told them that the work of God is to believe in Him.

He told us time and again, that belief is what justifies and condemns tradition, the very thing that the RC church places above the very words of Jesus.

That Catholic church has changed radically over the centuries. There is no consistency in what it believes. It places way too much stock in tradition and the opinion pieces of ancient writings. Many of those whom the church considers church fathers, have works attributed to them that turned out to either be fraudulent or heretical.

The RC church has a fantastic tendency to pick and choose what to believe to support its doctrine and discard anything that disagrees with it, Scripture included.

If that's the kind church you want to put your stock in, one built on sinking sand, by all means, you have that right. But as you like to say, *by their fruit you will know them* and the fruit of the Catholic church that we see today is anything but godly. It's corrupt to the core. It's reaping in the whirlwind what was sown in the wind.

I'll remain part of the one built on the Rock of Jesus and His Word.

But you can't say you weren't warned.

[caww]

I’ve heard an interesting take on “born of water”....referencing when a womans “water” breaks prior to delivery. “Born of water”. Born of the flesh.

Yes, what you said is true...so I suppose people should clarify which Baptism they’re referencing. That’s not always clear.

[metmom]

When Jesus is referring to being born physically, and says, *born of water*, it only makes sense that it refers to physical birth.

If He meant baptism, that would have been the perfect time to say so.

And He didn’t.

[caww]

Amazing me still the blindness there is to the truth and the solid arguements presented to evidence such. What’s alarming though is to imagine the day when they will indeed know the truth....what they missed... and the freedom they will never know within the confines of Vatican teachings.

[Cronos]

The Hebrew word for "memorial" is zikaron and it has a similar connotation to anamnesis in Greek culture. It is more than mental recollection. The celebration of the Passover was believed to involve a participation in the original exodus from Egypt. The purpose of this being an annual and perpetual event for the children of Israel was that every generation could experience the liberation from slavery that the first generation in Egypt had experienced. Thus, zikaron connotes a participation in an event of the past rather than simply a mental recollection of that event.

Whether you approach this question from the Greek or Hebrew side, the result supports the notion of the Real Presence. When Paul quotes Jesus as saying eis ten emen anamnesin, he understands the meaning both in Greek and Hebrew senses. When Jesus said, "do this eis ten emen anamensin," he was not saying to simply remember him. He was telling his twelve apostles to perform the same actions that he did in order to bring the reality of him back to this world.

[Cronos]

Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated.Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal.

Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice.

In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Revelations 5:6).

For all eternity i.e. outside time He, who is out of time is appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us.

Now it is clear that The difference between Christ’s death on the cross—the event—and the Eucharist—the sacrament—is the difference between history and liturgy.

The historical event happened once and it will never again be repeated (Heb. 9:25–26). The liturgical sacrament, however, not only keeps the past from being forgotten; through it the Eucharist of history—Jesus’ passion and death—is made present again.

[boatbums]

I believe when Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3, "You must be born again.", and Nicodemus thinks he is saying a man must go back into his mother's womb, that Jesus then said, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." I see here that Jesus was referring to being born of water as the human/flesh birth - the sack of waters, like you said. There are so many people who really believe Jesus is speaking of water baptism here, but he very clearly is not.

In Mark 16:16, Jesus says,"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." So, to me, he is saying that those who believe WILL be baptized (by the Spirit) and will be saved and those who do not believe will be condemned. Notice he doesn't say "those who do not believe and are not baptized will be condemned" but those who do not believe. Many people get water baptized as children and go on to be atheists, so it obviously is not the water baptism that saves.

[Cronos]

Yes, the sacrifice was made in our historical timeline. Yet God exists outside time (not before or after time)

let;s take it like this

-------A----------------B----

This is the line of time -- we exist on and in this line. To us event A happened before event B. Event A can never happen again.

However, God does not exist on this line, God sees everything as an eternal NOW, so to give a comparison it's like looking at the line from one end -- it becomes just a point, a point at which A and B are together.

As Heb 10:18 says, our sins have been forgiven, there is no more offering for sin. Christ is not still impaled or suffering for our sins. --> the event we see has ended.

In heaven, what is seen is as described in Revelations. We witness that heavenly scene and witness that ONE-time event, the sacrifice, we participate in that ONE-time event.

Christ's sacrifice is the same in each mass, wherever, whenever. All we do is repeat the offering of THE MASS, the renewal of the celebration, the commemoration, the remembrance, the celebration of the ONE-TIME sacrifice. Christ is not offered again and again, but He has already offered Himself once and the mass has THAT one-time sacrifice as it's sacrifice.

[caww]

Understanding this was an eyeopener for me. I remember the sermon well when that sunk in. I went home and studied the scriptures on the matter. All the scriptures surrounding that conversation confirmed to me Jesus ment physical Birth.

Though I didn’t believe Baptism saves, and do not now....my reason , at the time I was Batized was simple...I wanted to follow Jesus...and He was baptised. Such simple unclutered faith then...but then He sends us to school...:)