Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone

And the directive that “last rites” is a sacrament is listed where. Where in scripture are the words?

Uh, no.

James 5:14-15:
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Sounds like faith and prayer for the SICK.

Another twisting of Scripture to fit a man-made tradition.

Hoss

>>>There is hardly a passage in any of Paul’s epistles that fails to debunk papist heresies.<<<

Good point. Probably explains why there is such disdain for Paul among the Roman Catholics.

>>Do Roman Catholics believe Christ was made of wood and nails?<<

I doubt there are many Roman Catholics walking around with splinters in their mouths; well, not from communion anyway.

From here

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."...

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).

And, as a 16th century man said

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.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

while from here

By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49,, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers — Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type. The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the paschal lamb. The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaiah 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?

Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6:68 sqq.). The entire scene of the discourse and murmurings against it proves that the Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage, "It is the spirit that quickeneth", etc., in the sense of a glossing over or retractation, is wholly inadmissible. For in spite of these words the Disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: "My flesh is spirit", i.e. to be understood in a figurative sense, but: "My words are spirit and life".

to summarize the typical Roman Catholic position:

-Tradition good; even as it changes
-Paul bad

-Church fathers good
-Scripture is useful only when it can be contorted to support the church fathers, otherwise ignore it, especially the writings Paul.

Also, many misunderstand when Christ said "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail," and "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63)

The misunderstanding here springs from the implication that the word spirit is symbolic. Never in Scripture is this the case. We are told that God is spirit and that the devil is spirit, but no one would conclude from this that they are merely symbolic beings. What Jesus is driving at is that the carnal understanding of fallen human flesh is incapable of grasping spiritual realities—such as the Eucharist.

If one concludes from the above verses that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of his flesh and blood, a major difficulty arises. The Bible teaches that blood is essentially the seat of life within living things, and thus it is sacred. Every time the Bible speaks of symbolically eating another's flesh and drinking their blood, this is the idiomatic phrase that meant to persecute, betray, and murder (see Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26). Now read John 6 in light of those that understood Jesus to speak symbolically. "I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me, you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." This is senseless, but it is what his words would have meant if they were symbolic.

Some say this is cannibalism. This is the same accusation that early Christians got from pagans

Theophilus of Antioch "For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshipers of God and are called Christians, . . . that we eat human flesh."

This was the pagan claim that Christians were cannibals because they claimed to eat their God. Well, Christians did claim that (because they understood John 6 literally), but the pagans, not knowing that the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is sacramental but not corporeal in the normal physical sense, thought that Christians were eating flesh indistinguishable from the flesh hanging from their own bones. Ironically, the pagan charge of cannibalism tends to prove, rather than disprove, the Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental/Lutheran understanding of John 6

for the Jews, consuming blood was an abomination. Scripture tells us that many of the disciples of Jesus could not accept this and from that point on did not follow him (Jn 6:66), but not all of them. “Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘What about you, do you want to go away too?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we know that you are the Holy One of God’” (Jn 6:67-69). These Apostles did accept what he said—not because they understood, but because they believed in him.

If Jesus were merely speaking symbolically, he could easily have called the other disciples back and explained that he wasn’t speaking literally. He did not.

Since Jesus is God, if he said that the bread and wine becomes his body and blood, then those who acknowledge his divinity should have no difficulty believing it to be true because, like the Twelve, they believe in him. It is certainly no more extraordinary than his Incarnation!

Since the moment of his death transcends time, to celebrate it in time is not to create another Passion and death; it is to worship him in that very Passion here and now in the concrete manner of His devising.

Actually, if you read Ignatius of Antioch's writings you see it clearly is Church belief.

For example, when writing to the Smyrneans, Ignatius of Antioch stated that Docetists, a group of heretics who denied the Incarnation, refused to receive the Eucharist because they failed to recognize it as the body of Christ.

The formal definition of transubstantiation, was reflected in Ignatius's teaching.

Ignatius wrote about A.D. 110, 10 years or so after the death of John. He’s speaking here about "certain people" who were beginning to hold to "heterodox opinions" that he deemed "contrary to the mind of God"—strong language for the personal disciple of the last apostle.

Ignatius says: "These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).

Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. It is highly unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine different from what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple.

hence, Editor-Surveyor, what John the beloved disciple and HIS disciple Ignatius believed is exactly what Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Lutherans believe, that there is the REAL presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Yet, note -- Judas is one who disbelieved what Christ taught -- especially on the Eucharist. Judas' falling away happened PRECISELY because Christ said "this is my body".

Judas' views were similar to those who deny the REAL presence, namely "how is it possible? Is He asking us to become cannibals? This can't be true" and that lead to Judas betraying Christ.

If anything, Judas' story holds as an example of those who deny the Eucharist.

Caww -- these first three lines are not from one document from Vatican II. The third in fact is not even from Vatican II at all.

The first is from the Lumen Gentium document and the second from the Christus Dominus document. The third is a deliberate distortion of what the Catechism actually says

it is better to read the whole, unexcerpted version rather than excerpts from some other website.

Do note:

The first line is from the document Lumen Gentium
This is not a re-sacrifice. The key word is "celebrated as in
"As often as the .... IS CELEBRATED on an altar"
This does not imply that the work of our redemption is due to this celebration, rather that the work of our redemption is due to Christ's sacrifice and the work of redemption is carried on continuously
the second line is from some other doc: CHRISTUS DOMINUS from the council -- and of course, the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is the center and culmination of the whole life of the Christian community -- you may disagree but we think Celebrating Christ's triumph over death to be very important

And the statement "through...." is a deliberate misunderstatement :-). The actual verse from the Catechism is

Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.

Note:

the spiritual sacrifice of the faitheful
is completed in union with
the sacrifice of Christ
This is OFFERED (NOT resacrificed)
in an UNBLOODY and SACRAMENTAL manner

Line 5 is from yet another separate, distinct document from VAtican II, PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS and mis-quoted again. The actual text says

Thus the Eucharistic Action, over which the priest presides, is the very heart of the congregation. So priests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to join to it the offering of their own lives.

Note again what I said above -- this is not a re-killing.

Christ WAS the DIVINE VICTIM -- you must admit that -- He sacrificed Himself for our sins. The mass is joining in that ONE time sacrifice -- remember that God exists out of space and time. What happened then is an eternal NOW for Him. The divine sacrifice is a NOW. The Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24). After all, if Calvary didn’t get the job done, then the Mass won’t help. It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ—it is the work of Christ.

Line 6 is from yet ANOTHER separate, distinct document from VAtican II, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us

Note again what I said above -- remember that God exists out of space and time. What happened then is an eternal NOW for Him. The divine sacrifice is a NOW.

The Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends outside TIME: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24).

It is precisely because the death of Christ was sufficient that the Mass is celebrated. It does not add to or take away from the work of Christ—it is the work of Christ.

“Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. It is highly unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine different from what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple.”

Your basis for so saying?

1 Corinthians 10:16–17 points to 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." Now ask yourself: What must the cup and the bread be to make possible 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 says that partaking of the one bread makes many different people into one body. The explanation for how there can be only one mystical body of Christ is that everyone receives the same bread. This is a kind of mystical unity that would be impossible if the bread and wine were not the true body and blood of Christ. Ordinary bread and wine simply cannot unite people into the body of Christ, but bread and wine transformed into Christ himself can.

Paul's question in verse 16 assumes a powerful truth: "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 meal is a real participation, a genuine communion in these heavenly realities-the body and blood of Christ. The union with the one Lord excludes participation in the rituals of other gods.

Paul explicitly confirms this: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (10:21). Such strong language is based on the belief that Paul had already given to the Church at Corinth. This celebration that was so central to the life of the church involved a real communion with Christ. And not just with Christ in general, but with his body and his blood.

INDEED. THX THX.