Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone

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.

When Jesus came to earth, was born, lived, and died, He existed IN time.

He died IN time.

Now outside of time, he’s seated at God’s right hand as stated in Hebrews 10.

THAT it the actual reality of what is going on now OUTSIDE of time.

Yup, When Jesus came to earth, was born, lived, and died, He existed IN time. He died IN time. Now outside of time, he’s seated at God’s right hand as stated in Hebrews 10. He is the eternal sacrifice as seen in 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.

The belief that Christ is there in bread and wine is shared by Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Copts, Armenians etc. -- this is NOT a remembrance (you are correct on that), this IS Christ.

Yet, the eucharist is NOT a re-sacrifice of Christ, this is participation in that ONE sacrifice of Christ which happened in the past and which God sees in heaven as shown in Revelation.

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."

From the catechism

The anaphora: with the Eucharistic Prayer - the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration - we come to the heart and summit of the celebration:
.. the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. the whole community thus joins in the unending praise that the Church in heaven, the angels and all the saints, sing to the thrice-holy God.

the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit.

Then it goes on to say

In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.

anamnesis as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:24–26 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

verse 26 explains "do this in memory" as it says that this anamnesis involves a proclamation of the Lord's death in this act of consecration.

Anamnesis denotes how an abstract idea relates to the real world.

Thius ties in to the Hebrew word zikaron which means memorial and has the same usage and connotations as anamnesis.

just as passover is a participation in the original exodus more than simply a remembrance, the Eucharist too is a participation in the sacrifice of Christ

So, it works both from Greek and Hebrew when Paul writes that Jesus said eis ten emen anamnesin. When Jesus said this, do this in memory of me, He said "do this ten emen anamnesin" He meant more than just a symbol.

you can also read the website called to communion which address the Reformed folks -- ok, this should actually be directed to the others, but never mind, I'll also send it to you

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

Note also Hebrews 10:16 And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them Jesus says that He placed His law in man’s hearts, though this is attributed to God in Jeremiah 31:33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Hence Jesus Christ is God.

The “Old Catholic Church” was never more than a splinter group. As for Pio Nono’s motivation, it was the shock of realizing that Italian Liberals were fanatics who would stop at nothing—and were liars. Jokingly he once said that he and Garibaldi were the only honest men in Italy.

Honesty was certainly not one of Pius's traits according to many Bishops of the time.

* “Other bishops, like Bishop Henri Manret, openly called Pius IX a liar, so the charge was not at all unusual or suspect.”

* “Cardinal Gustav von Hohenlohe told a friend:” ‘In my entire life, I have never met a man who was less particular about the truth than Pius IX.” “He never admitted to the things he had done in his efforts to have infallibility declared an official Church dogma.”

* “Bishop Felix Dupanloupe wrote in his diary: "I'm not going to the Council anymore. The violence, the shamelessness, even more the falsity, vanity, and continual lying force me to keep my distance."

* “Bishop Lecourtier from France, who was so discouraged that he threw his notes into the Tiber river and simply went home only to have his bishopric taken away for his trouble, complained:

http://www.catholicshaveachoice.com/Against%20Papal%20Infallibility.htm

You’re repeating bilge; bilge that has been refuted. Repeating it does nothing but show that you have nothing really to add; unless you actually do.

If so, please do.

Any sign of scriptural evidence for the timeline of purgatory, influences of prayers of the saints thereon, or the impact of indulgences?

I’m still waiting — either there is or there is not.

Ignoring it won’t make it go away.

Hoss

“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.”

I vaguely remember this being posted before... nothing new?

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 does no such thing? Recall my example I posted in reply? I participate in government, but I’m not a governor... I participate in a football game, but I’m not a player — football players participate in a football game but they are not footballs.... I participate in the Lord’s Supper by partaking the elements, remembering the once and for all sacrifice made by Christ on the cross for my sins. That does not “re-sacrifice” Jesus in any way... and I do not drink his blood or eat his physical flesh — He is present in spirit, not in the elements.

Repetition is sign of a failed argument on your behalf. And twisting scripture to try to make a point, no matter how many times it’s repeated, does not truth make.

Anything NEW?

Hoss

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.

You argument refutes itself. The Israelites, when celebrating the Passover, certainly did not understand themselves to be actually participating in the event again. They knew that the references to keeping the Passover were symbolic.

Further, your argument for zikrown and anamnesis is wrong. Neither of them has the connotation of "participation" in an event again, at least not beyond that of mental recollection with a view towards identification with those who went through the original event. That is simply something that Catholicism tries to "read into" the issue after the fact. But it has no basis in the actual philological, contextual, or lexical meanings of either word, as they are used in Scripture.

The "Real Presence" is emphatically NOT supported by these texts.

Remarks phrased as a question are rarely "making it personal" because they are tentative.

"Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic." is making it personal.

Of course there are exceptions and I have little tolerance for posters finessing the guidelines trying to get in a personal attack by ending it with a question mark, e.g. "Have you lost your mind?"

The copyright issues have been resolved and the air has been cleared. I doubt if it will happen again.

So it's time to put that issue to bed and return to the issues of the thread. Otherwise, it would making the thread "about" another poster which is also a form of "making it personal."

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

Uh... no.

God cannot be divided. He is the one, true, living God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The argument leveled by the Romish author here automatically fails because the argument BEGINS from a false premise — that God was divided.

Even in the “arguments” that are presented, the only way to get around God’s inerrant scripture and truth is to basically argue against a straw man and then claim some great point of truth.

God loves us, but hates our sins... right? Then where is the conundrum other than in the minds of false teachers in Rome?

Sorry — you can’t get truth from a straw man. And that is what we have here; and a not too subtle attempt either.

Fail. Try again.

Hoss

So argue with the site called to communion

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

Address the points there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.