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.

Hope concerns things that are possible but not certain

Who hopes for what he certainly will receive? In such a situation the virtue at work is patience, not hope. We hope when we are not entirely sure that what we wish for will come to pass.

That's only if one is a Catholic...A Christian understands the meaning of hope in the biblical sense...And it's not what you think it is...

How it is possible for the Mass to not be a re-sacrifice of Christ when the Mass is called “a divine sacrifice” that is done over and over again?

We are told that... “the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice..... that it is an unbloody offering that is proptiatory,.... that it can make reparation of sins,.... and is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice,.... (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: “Sacrifice of the Mass”).

There’s no other way to conclude that it is a sacrifice that occurs over and over again .....and since it is said to be a true and proper sacrifice that is propitiatory, then logically it must be a re-sacrifice of Christ...... If it is not, then how can it be called a sacrifice of Christ?

Also, how could it be propitiatory if it is not a sacrifice of Christ since it is Christ’s offering on the cross that is itself propitiatory?

Caww -- I said Paul says that partaking of the one bread makes many different people into one body.

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."

And you have moved to a different topic -- St. Paul was taking about being ONE in the body with Christ, which is what St. Paul says -- is it not a participation in the body of Christ --> and you bring up Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. -- quite separate.

If you want to dispute 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 which clearly says 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 -- you can dispute it with St. Paul, I'm just repeating what scripture said.

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne,

Revelations 5:6

This clearly shows that the lamb that was slain is standing at the center of the Throne, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6).

Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest’s very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the 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."

The “out of time therefore any sequence of events makes no difference” argument seems to be the latest attempt to make sense of the idea that Jesus was sacrificed in the eucharist meal before he died, and the sacrifice is left on the altar forever since “he is out of time”.

I have yet to see any basis for this latest verbal gymnastic.

Paul says in Romans 8:23-24

[24] For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? [25] But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience.

Hope concerns things that are possible but not certain

Who hopes for what he certainly will receive? In such a situation the virtue at work is patience, not hope. We hope when we are not entirely sure that what we wish for will come to pass.

If one wishes to dispute the words of scripture with Paul -- go ahead.

About the best explanation I’ve come up with is to call it

The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology And Reality Mangling

sigh.

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).

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."

for all eternity 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.

You stated......

“Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place ONCE, and it will never be repeated......THE CHURCH REPEATS THAT.”

You further stated....

“The risen CHRIST BECOMES PRESENT ON THE ALTER.....AND OFFERS HIMSELF TO GOD AS A LIVING SACRIFICE.”

Clearly you are stating it is indeed a re-sacrificing of Christ.

“Now: 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.”

This is the most ludicrous bilge I’ve seen written — it is so rife with illogic it isn’t even funny. ‘The most obvious and logical answer....’ is neither....

“Participate” does not equal your magical “real presence” in the bread and wine. I participate in government; that doesn’t make me governor... Football players “participate” in playing football; that doesn’t make them footballs. We participate in Christ’s body and blood in that we are saved by his shed blood, death and resurrection which we *commemorate* by the Lords’ Supper.

Once again, words are twisted, stretched and garbled in vain attempt to prove the unprovable.

And the two things your statement are not, and could never be are ‘obvious’ and ‘logical.’

Hoss

The farce of Vatican I where Pius got himself coronated infallible by a rigged vote of pensioners living off his dime, causing ANOTHER split.
And what split is that? In fact, Vatican I began a period during the pope gained a degree of direct control over the Church unmatched since the 13th Century, unlike the Medieval popes, he did not have to rely on the authority of the State.

A small split that created the "Old Catholic Church" from those who could not park their intellect and knowledge of history, at the door and except the fantasy of infallibility. I think it was mostly Germans. Dollinger, a famous Catholic historian of the time, could not accept it either.

I think Pius wanted it to make himself feel better after losing temporal power.

Cronos...the crucifixion did not occur outside of time....it was an actual real life event. Saying God operates ouside of time ,in this reagard, is not an arguement that can stand in light of the historical event.

Sacrifice of the Christ = one time event in our history
God exists out of time
Christ, the High Priest offered a sacrifice in time, Himself, God exists out of time, so to God, it appears as the eternal sacrifice on the Cross -- to us, it is a one-time event, which has happened ONCE.
That is why in Revelation, we see the sacrifice as God sees it -- a lamb, standing as though he had been slain (Rev. 5:6).
Christ appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God 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.<
Note -- it is not the re-sacrifice of Christ, but the participation in the one-time sacrifice that has already happened
Christ's death on the cross was propitiatory and that is why God sees it as in revelation, a lamb standing proudly, giving of his blood, the Eucharist

It's hardly a "latest attempt" -- this is how it has always been believed.

Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated.Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal.

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."

Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary took place once, and it will never be repeated.Jesus’ offering was perfect, efficacious, and eternal.

The Church repeats that The Mass is a participation in this ONE heavenly offering.

The risen Christ becomes present on the altar outside time and offers himself to God as a living sacrifice.

Note -- this is the ONE heavenly offering. The mass is a participation in this ONE heavenly offering. No matter where or when, the participation is in this ONE out-of-time event.

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.". This is our cue for participation in what never ends outside time (since God is outside time and space): the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake (Heb 7:25, 9:24).

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.