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.

[Judith Anne]

Just reading tonight, starting here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661138/posts?q=1&;page=351

And wondering how a decent, interesting thread gets turned into such a sewer. I know you have tried your best to make a set of rules that will fit most circumstances, and still allow for free discussion, but this is giving FR a bad name. I can’t, in good conscience, recommend it to my Catholic friends because of what they will find here. Look at post 380, it’s not unique; this new poster can hardly make any comment without being harassed for joining this month. If the protestants were trying to drive every Catholic off the forum, they could hardly do worse.

Is there nothing that can be done? Is there any way I or the other Catholics can be of assistance? We are trying.

[RobbyS]

Better learn to read. It means that Christ’s sacrifice saves all mankind, both living and dead, born and yet to be born, until he comes again.

I suggest you get the book: 1407. The Eucharist is the heart and summit of the Church’s life. For in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving once for all on the cross to his Father. By this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on the body that is his Church.

1409. The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.

1410. It is Christ himself who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

[Quix]

.

We are trying.

We are keenly aware of that!

Perhaps an African taxidermy shop could offer some greatly thicker Rhino skin . . . though perhaps crocodile would be a better match.

[Quix]

Black comedy.

Alas, when the whole Vatican AIWSOTARM INSTITUTION starts out with wholesale farce 300+ years after the events . . . what can we expect but BLACK COMEDY!

[presently no screen name]

can hardly make any comment without being harassed for joining this month

Really. Did you count his posts or is this just a 'whine time'?

[RobbyS]

Is it honest to minimize the divisions among protestants? i don't means simple differences in doctrine, which are often petty, but the constant quarreling that led to endless division. As Paul complained, the cult of personality has pulled the Church apart since the beginning. Heresies—which are really just the private opinion of certain pastors cause other splits. Catholicism, which is really a kind of centripetal force aiming to counter the flying apart of Christians, mitigates but does not end this tendency, which is best described as the work of the devil. Where so many prophets are at work, the best that can be hoped for is a sustained effort to find who can be trusted and who not. Part of that effort led to the writing and collection of a canon; the other was to find men with a direct link to the earliest followers of Christ.
an effort to find out which are to be trusted and which are not.

[Quix]

I think it would be a great contribution to civility and Christian truth on FR

if the Rabid Clique types of RC’s would

even make earnest efforts to

be more

—congruent
—honest
—Biblical
—historically accurate
—honorable
—do unto others
—

and

less mean-spirited;
less personally assaultive;
less given to posting falsehoods about Proddys;
less harshly prickly;
less given to screaming petulant 2 year old outrage . . .

[presently no screen name]

Too funny!

[Judith Anne]

Your post to me, regarding my post 381, is making it personal. Please do not do that, it is against the rules.

[Judith Anne]

Please do not post to me when you have complaints about RCs.

[RobbyS]

Is this as absurd as the idea that after 1500 years, a single monk stumbled over the True Faith based on his reading of Scripture?

[count-your-change]

Since #351, where you said you started to read, is directed first to me, amongst others, I feel free to reply to your post. To wit:

If you don’t like the free for all of open threads, post a caucus.

Recommend to your Catholic friends that they not engage in personal insults and foul language or respond to those who do. I’ve found this most useful even though it is hard to hold the tongue from wagging.

Do not try to top others in their sarcasm. It never works even if it sometimes feels good.

Lastly, most here are quite able to defend themselves even as “newbies”. Well thought out comments will be welcomed even if disputed, no matter how long the poster has been here. Trust me on this on, really.

And, and have a sense of humor about all this. It’s a talk forum! I dare say I’ve argued with some here rather strenuously yet never neither of us felt the other was a bad person. So don’t take anything personally.

Cheers!

[Quix]

Has it become RC dogma . . .

or a RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION

or a Station of the White Hanky

or an act of spiritual exaltation

or a farcical RELIGIOUS DUTY

for FR RC’s to

A) whine and wail at least every 2nd to every 3rd post

and/or

B to ping the Religion Moderator in some sort of manipulative !!!!CONTROL!!!! phreaque effort to turn FR into an office of the VAtican

???????????????????

Inquiring minds wish to know.

[Quix]

THERE YA GO AGIN

TRYING TO BE SENSIBLE, SANE, RATIONAL, PRODUCTIVE, MATURE.

Where’s the fun in that!???!

LOL.

[Quix]

I wonder . . .

It seems like some RC’s are not aware

of the fact that

SAYING something is MAKING IT PERSONAL

is not necessarily any more accurate

than

SAYING that Mary was a perpetual virgin

made her so.

[count-your-change]

I like to poke fingers in eyes as much as anyone but sparing with a blind person just doesn’t have the right flavor, you see.

I tried fun once, didn’t like it and have done it since.

[Quix]

LOL.

I know . . .

however . . .

occasionally verbal whacks up-side the head can SOMETIMES alert a blind person that they’ve just ran into a brick wall and ought to change directions.

[Judith Anne]

occasionally verbal whacks up-side the head can SOMETIMES alert a blind person that they’ve just ran into a brick wall and ought to change directions.

In my opinion, that is a truly evil statement, from a coward. Anyone who would find that amusing needs serious help.

[presently no screen name]

Especially when the newbie - all 22 days - has so much to say what they have noticed on these threads.

i have noticed that Catholics that post here correctly describe P

[Quix]

Some are keenly aware that some of the Rabid Clique type RC's construe

virtually EVERY statement by a Proddy

as an evil statement.

LOL.