Replies

So, by believeing all that you've posted here, Christ drank His OWN blood and ate His OWN flesh with the disciples; right?

I think the passages are very clear and the meaning is obvious. Aren't we following your suggestion to take the most literal and obvious interpretation of the passages? He says repeatedly that the bread is His body and that the wine is His blood. What more can be said?

I could elaborate, and show you many examples of Early Church Fathers, and evidence of early Church gatherings, where the doctrine of transubstantiation can be witnessed in action. I could put the notion of transubstantion in its context in light of the Exodus and the foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration in the slaughtering of the sacrificial lamb in the passover meal. Etc. That would substantiate and valid that obvious and clear interpretation of what Christ says to His Apostles at the Last Supper, but is also unnecessary.

But one thing that may be clarifying is Scott Hahn's discussion of the "Fourth Cup" at the Passover meal, which is discussed in his book, The Lamb's Supper. Hahn was a Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism, and his defense of the transubstantiation is mindful of all the usual Protestant objections, as well as being completely Biblical.

For example, Hahn discusses this notion of the "Fourth Cup" -- that in the Passover meal for Jews, four cups of wine are drunk over the course of the meal, and the last cup is drunk just prior to the eating of the Passover lamb. But in the descriptions of the Last Supper in the NT, they never drink the Fourth Cup. The Fourth Cup is not drunk until Christ is crucified and fed the wine after He calls out in thirst, and after this, he exclaims that his mission is accomplished and dies -- becoming in effect the paschal lamb.

Of course, remember, in the Passover meal, there are clear directions given to the Jewish people. They must slaugher the lamb and place the blood upon the doors of their houses. But more than this, the lamb is to be cooked and eaten entirely, or else the penalty is death. Do you see the implication: The lamb must be eaten, or the penalty is death. It's all there in Exodus, and the OT reveals the same command Christ gives us and which is revealed in the NT: if we wish to live, if we wish to have eternal life, then we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. To me, this is crystal clear; it's hard to think anyone could read the Bible otherwise.

For further reading beyond Hahn's book, there is also a nice introduction called Catholics and the Eucharist: A Scriptural Introduction by Stephen B. Clark. For a dense and scholarly history, I would suggest The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist by Fr. James O'Connor. These would give you a good basis to really understand the Biblical and historical basis for the Catholic perspective on transubstantiation.

For an early paper by Hahn on the "Fourth Cup," which he wrote before the book was written, you can find this paper on-line: In Search of the Fourth Cup.