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.

[HossB86]

“In fact your denying of scripture is exactly what Martin Luther rebuked when he said...”

You just cannot argue without making it personal, can you?

Sadly, (or happily) I have Sunday Schoolers who have a better grasp of scriptural exegesis than Rome!!!

By the way: any word on the scriptural references as to how long “purgatory” takes? How about indulgences—any chapter and verse that delineates how much money reduces your time bring ‘purged’?

I keep asking this and you have yet to come through!!!

When you can do this, talk to me again.

Hoss

[Cronos]

In fact, bb, as I was originally saying, the Eucharist has remained the same for the Orthodox, Catholics, Orientals, Lutherans, Anglo-Catholics etc.

You can see it in scripture, you can see it in Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood,

or Ignatius' Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible

or best is what Ignatius wrote of some heretics in (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" and Ireneus Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles"

This only backs up scripture -- if you wish to deny Scripture which clearly says "this is my body", then go ahead

[Cronos]

In fact bb, take heed of what Ignatius said

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"

This only ties in with what scripture has clearly stated of Christ inaugurating the Eucharist and Paul reiterating it in Corinthians. Deny scripture if you wish.

[Cronos]

Scripture has said it clearly

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.

1 Cor. 10:16-17, 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."

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

In fact, Paul goes on to say that 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).

If you wish to keep denying scripture. Good luck to you.

[Cronos]

Remember, it was also hard for the Roman pagans to believe Jesus Christ's words directly or through Paul, hence Justin Martyr who wrote in his First Apology (A.D. 151) to the pagan Emperor "The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

So if you wish to keep denying scripture and denying Christ's own words inaugurating the Eucharist, go ahead... your own choice

[Cronos]

Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words. Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?

Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body?

or, that is is the same as it signifies?

What language in the world ever spoke so?

It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.

Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

[Cronos]

Don't forget you started this conversation in post 1177, now if anyone wishes to keep denying Scripture like

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

they can keep denying that the bread is not the Body of Christ... they can keep denying Christ's words and Paul writings.

[Cronos]

From the catechism:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life (Jn 1:12-18; ⇒ 17:3; ⇒ Rom 8:14-17; ⇒ 2 Pet 1:3-4.)

Grace is a participation in the life of God.

This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself

The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it(Jn 4:14; ⇒ 7:38-39.).

It is in us the source of the work of sanctification

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself. 2 Cor 5:17-18.

[Mad Dawg]

Not that it matters, but there is no official doctrine on how long purgation takes, and some have speculated that it is instantaneous without having their thought condemned.

Also the basis for indulgences is in our Lord’s resurrection appearance to the eleven on Easter evening. The silly Church finally got a clue that involving money and indulgences led to abuses so it doesn’t do that anymore.

And, BTW, there is a distinction between characterising a person and commenting critically on an argument. Theb latter is not personal.

Not that it matters.

[Cronos]

From the catechism:

There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."

Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church 1 Cor 12..

Unlike Presbyterians and many other groups, we Catholics believe the the gifts like talking in tongues and miracles still continue. So too do our fellow Pentecostal brothers in Christ believe in this continuation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is powerful and to be praised

All glory to God!

[HossB86]

Not that it matters, but there is no official doctrine on how long purgation takes, and some have speculated that it is instantaneous without having their thought condemned.”

Really? Then why pray for those in “purgatory” if it’s instantaneous?? Odd....

“Also the basis for indulgences is in our Lord’s resurrection appearance to the eleven on Easter evening.”

Uh... No. Scriptural proof??

“Not that it matters.”

Certainly not when it comes to Rome.

And by the way—saying that I deny something is mind reading. Not that it matters.

Hoss

[HossB86]

When you have something substantive let me know. Reading repetitive posts gets old.

Still no scripture for what I asked about?

Hoss

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

I am neither Catholic nor Pentecostal. I'm just a bakery shop kid.

But concerning miracles, I repeat what hosepipe often says: I not only believe in miracles, I count on them.

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[metmom]

Boatbums, does your group do this as outlined by Justin Martyr?

Oh, starting with this *your group* stuff with bb now?

Join the club, bb. Whatever you said must have hit its target.

[metmom]

‘Remember, just as for you to doubt scripture, it was also hard for the Roman pagans to believe Jesus Christ’s words directly or through Paul, hence Justin Martyr who wrote in his First Apology (A.D. 151) to the pagan Emperor “The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”’

Actually, that comment was directed to boatbums, although the copy to you implies you as well.

It sure looks like mind reading to me.....

[metmom]

“In fact your denying of scripture is exactly what Martin Luther rebuked when he said...”

Also posted to bb.

But I see that it's very similar to the treatment I've received so it's easy to see that it could be missed to whom it was posted.

[metmom]

And in each account of the Last Supper, Jesus called what was in the cup *the fruit of the vine*.

Why don't Catholics take THAT literally?

Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."

Mark 14:25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

[Quix]

That’s nice Cronos.

It’s all the other official pages that indicate contradictory things that cause so much trouble, spiritual death and offense.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!