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.

[Cronos]

Thank you -- now our fellow Christian non-Lutherans, non-Anglo-Catholic Protestants who disbelieve the words as given in scripture have the free will to disbelieve this if they so wish to, but it is as you said In breaking and eating the bread and drinking the wine, the remembrance is practicing the presence of Him Who gave Himself for us. And because our Lord is risen and dwells now across the many dimensions/variables of time and space He can be just an arm’s length away, like in Daniel 5, and can hear our pleading to Him from many voices simultaneously and individually ... the Presence of The Lord is a reality Jesus was teaching His disciples with the bread and wine ‘in remembrance of Him’. He IS our Great High Priest and the Veil has been removed which could spearate us. It is up to us to practice His presence and He IS with us always, even to the ends of the earth.

[Cronos]

I'm flattered, but these are the words through Paul:

Heb 9:25-26

25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Rom 8:34

34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Revelations 5:6

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth.

[Cronos]

And here's another link for you!

All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood." A plain and straightforward reading of these words leads to the conclusion that BOTH bread AND body, BOTH wine AND blood are present in the consecrated elements of the Lord's Supper.

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

[Cronos]

And especially for you, Metmom, a sermon on why Jesus Christ is God from Holy Trinity Lutheran Church sermons.

“And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing eh persons nor dividing the substance.” Not three gods but one God in essence. And yet not one Person but three Persons. Tri-une. Three in One and One in Three. Got it?

[HarleyD]

Sorry Cronos but it is NOT a lie. It is imbedded in Catholic doctrine and can be read on New Advent. Here is a comparison of the Reformed version and the Catholic version of the atonement is according to the Catholic website, "Called to Communion". Keep in mind the typical bias interpretation of the text like "God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect".

The Reformed conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins. In the Reformed conception, this is what it means to bear the curse, to bear the Father’s wrath for sin. In Reformed thought, at Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father transferred all the sins (past, present, and future) of all the elect onto His Son. Then God the Father hated, cursed and damned His Son, who was evil in the Father’s sight on account of all the sins of the elect being concentrated in the Son. (R.C. Sproul says that here.) In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. Because the sins of the elect are now paid for, through Christ’s having already been punished for them, the elect can never be punished for any sin they might ever commit, because every sin they might ever commit has already been punished. For that reason Reformed theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect. Otherwise, if Christ died for everyone, this would entail universal salvation, since it would entail that all the sins of all people, have already been punished, and therefore cannot be punished again.

The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.1 So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; in Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him. Deeper still, even our present sins contributed to His suffering, because He, in solidarity with us, grieved over all the sins of the world, not just the sins of the elect. Hence, St. Francis of Assisi said, “Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”2 The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God.

Called to Communion

[Cronos]

Revelations is not all of it future -- note that the imagery of a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain is the imagery of Christ.

[Cronos]

Thank you for the civil conversation and civil post.

My source is The Catechism

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." (Rom 5:19)

By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".

Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

[Cronos]

I'm not sure where the poster got his opinions from, as the Catechism and Church beliefs are CLEAR that Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

and the author's opinon does not seem to deny the atonement nature, only claiming that this is NOT just wrath but his gif below that article clears things up, IMHO as it points out self-sacrifice of Christ


This post seems to neglect to mention (but does not deny) the atonement nature of Jesus Christ's sacrifice,

But the article (linked here) goes on to say

One problem with the Reformed conception is that it would either make the Father guilty of the greatest evil of all time (pouring out the punishment for all sin on an innocent man, knowing that he is innocent), or if Christ were truly guilty and deserved all that punishment, then His suffering would be of no benefit to us.

[Cronos]

Church beliefs are CLEAR that Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

and the author's opinon does not seem to deny the atonement nature, only claiming that this is NOT just wrath

the article (linked here) goes on to say

A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word.

God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true.

But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus.

Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity

[Cronos]

Church beliefs are CLEAR that Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

and the author's opinon does not seem to deny the atonement nature, only claiming that this is NOT just wrath.
In fact, at the bottom, he clarifies that this WAS an atonement

From the website called to communion goes on to say

One question, from the Reformed point of view, is: How then were our sins paid for, if Christ was not punished by the Father? Christ made atonement for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him. Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.

Please do Note -- your statement in post 962 It no longer believes in the atonement of Christ. is false.

Even this very website you cite states that the author believes in an atonment, while the catechism says Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father

[HossB86]

This is sad; all you can do is basically plagiarize my post? Really?

Must mean you’ve run out of room. Or false doctrine.

By the way: ever come up with scripture that details the process and length of “purgatory?” Where does it say anything about indulgences? That whopper of a RCC lie denies Christ’s sufficiency just as does this blasphemous re-sacrifice. Been waiting. But your silence is telling.

Oh—and cite your sources.

Hoss

[HossB86]

“no obfuscating! i was merely highlighting he was conceding what i was trying to get him to concede.”

Then why the partial post? Hmmm? Why not post all of his post instead of one part and then claiming something not true based on caww’s ENTIRE post?

And, sorry; no changing the subject.

Hoss

[HossB86]

” i was merely highlighting he was conceding what i was trying to get him to concede.”

That’s the point; his entire post shows he conceded nothing; but when you cherry-pick one part you can make it say what you want.

Hmm. That’s exactly like the Roman Catholic Church.

Hoss

[HossB86]

“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.”

And here exactly is where Rome’s error (and yours) is shown.

“We.” if Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice, how can *we* DO anything? If *we* present his sacrifice again, on what basis could it ever be received? God says that all of our works are as dirty rags. How can that not taint this “representation?”

Clue: Christ’s sacrifice is done, complete and finished. It does not need representation; to do so is to deny its sufficiency. To claim His death requires anything like renewal is to claim that once is not enough. Besides, how can one claim, “Christ’s sacrifice is the same in every Mass” and still say that his sacrifice was one time only??? Non-sequitor.

Sorry. But there is no logic to your claim or explanation.

Hoss

[Cronos]

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.

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

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

However, God does not exist on this timeline, 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.

[Cronos]

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne,

Revelations 5:6 This clearly shows that the lamb that was slain is standing at the center of the Throne, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6).

Jesus is eternally our priest, Christ whose eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself. This is why he appears in the book of Revelation as a lamb

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

The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering. The risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice. Like the Mass, Christ words at the Last Supper are words of sacrifice, "This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . given up for you."

Remember also that 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 reflects the Real Presence: "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? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

What must this cup and the bread be for this participation in the blood and body of Christ?

The most obvious and logical answer is that the bread and cup of wine must really be the body and blood of Christ.

Paul asks in verse 16: "Isn't the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? Isn't the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

The Corinthians already know the answer to this question. Yes! This is a real participation, a genuine communion in the body and blood of Christ

[Cronos]

In fact, there is a very good point at called to communion kindly given by HarleyD, which points out that the Reformed concept of communion conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity

A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma. If God the Father was pouring out His wrath on the Second Person of the Trinity, then God was divided against Himself, God the Father hating His own Word.

God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true.

But if God loved the Son, then it must be another person (besides the Son) whom God was hating during Christ’s Passion. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i.e. that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus.

Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity

[metmom]

The mass has a beginning and an end.

How can it be a sacrifice is nobody or nothing is killed?

What’s the point of the church’s altar then? What’s the point of offering it up?

What’s the point of the catholic church SAYING that He dies again, as it does and you’ve been shown.

The definition of sacrifice itself demands the logical conclusion of killing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrifice

1: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar

2: something offered in sacrifice

3a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

Jesus is presently seated at the right hand of God the Father.

Hebrews 10:12-14 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Demanding that He is still being offered in heaven or anywhere as an eternal sacrifice when Scripture says otherwise, that it was a one time event and done and He is seated at the Father’s right hand, is denying the truth found in Scripture.

The Roman Catholic church is wrong in this. They are being condemned by their own words as lying.

[Cronos]

Metmom: How can it be a sacrifice is nobody or nothing is killed?

Sacrifice does not necessarily meaning killing. Check:

• Heb. 13:15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.
• Ps. 50:14 Sacrifice thank offerings to God, fulfill your vows to the Most High
• Numbers 8:9–15 Aaron is to present the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the Israelites, so that they may be ready to do the work of the LORD.

Besides, the sacrifice of the mass is the participation in the ONE sacrifice that was Christ's sacrifice.

[metmom]

Hardly -- unlike some other groups, we Catholics do share.

It's irrelevant whether other groups share or not. That's not the point.

The problem with your posting material without attribution in each post is twofold.

One is that it puts FR at risk of copyright infringement.

The other is that it leaves others under the impression that what you posted was YOUR work, not the work of others. That's commonly known as plagiarism.

Whole paragraphs can be google searched and show up verbatim. Rearranging the order of the paragraphs does not make the material your own.

And posting one blanket post that all previous material is from such and such a site, does not seem like it would cover FR's tail.

Both actions are wrong and unworthy of someone who calls themselves a Christian.

It's not really all that hard to copy and paste the site and url. Anyone who can find the site and copy and paste paragraphs of material, has demonstrated the computer skills to be able to add the site name and url in each post while they're at it. There's no excuse for not doing so.