My friend Travis (TheGreatBout) recently wrote of questions with the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Travis asked for responses from Protestants and Catholics.
Transubstantiation itself cannot be covered without discussing the entire Eucharist, so this may be a lengthy response. Some definitions:
The Eucharist
This is what is commonly referred to as "communion" or "The Lord's Supper". The Eucharist is one of seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. The Sacrament was instituted on Holy Thursday (or Maundy Thursday), the day before Christ's crucifixion, in an upper room of a house in Jerusalem during which was thought to be a simple Passover feast (Matthew 26:20–30; Mark 14:17–26; Luke 22:14-23; John 13:21–30; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 ).
The Real Presence
This describes the truth that when we receive communion--in any form as all Christians believe, at least partially, in the Real Presence--Christ is literally present with us. Catholics maintain that He is fully present "body and blood, soul and divinity", something that has been maintained since the beginnings of the Church. The difference between Catholics and Protestants falls upon the question as to the actual presence of Christ's body and blood in the species (the actual bread and wine) of the Eucharist. Protestants acknowledge that Christ is there with us, but do not differentiate His presence at the Eucharist from His divine presence anywhere else. This is where the rather scientific sounding doctrine of Transubstantiation comes into the picture.
What Transubstantiation is not and does not do
It is not a literal turning of bread into flesh or wine into blood. You will not look upon the bread and suddenly say "Ewwwwwwww!!!" once it has been consecrated. You will not taste blood in your mouth. Catholics are not cannibals; Cannibals are people who eat real and literal human flesh. Transubstantiation does not provide Salvation nor does it remove sin. The same can be said for the entire Sacrament of the Eucharist, of which Transubstantiation is a description of form.
The fact that receiving communion does not remove sin is evident in the fact that one must be free of sin when receiving, either having taken the Sacrament of Reconciliation prior to Mass (for mortal sins) or through the act of penance at the beginning of Mass (for venial sins). The effects of the Eucharist in relation to Salvation are the same as those of anything we do short of accepting the grace freely offered by Jesus on the Cross. The Eucharist is us participating in and cooperating with our Salvation as opposed to receiving Christ's gift then sitting around and saying, "Well, I'm all good, the rest of you suckers have fun in Hell."
What Transubstantiation is
When a priest or Bishop consecrates the species during the Eucharistic prayers, the species is turned into the body (the bread) and blood (the wine) of Christ while retaining its form as bread and wine. How is Christ able to turn into something that still looks and tastes like bread and wine? Well, how was Christ able to take a few loaves a bread and a few fish and feed 5000 people? This is the fundamental lesson that Christ was attempting to teach to the unbelieving Jews throughout John 6. Do not question nor doubt what I can do.
What about the Last Supper?Travis has asked about how to reconcile this doctrine with the fact that Jesus was sitting before the Apostles at the Last Supper and standing before the Jews in John 6, so how could He be referring to His own living body when He said "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood". The Jews asked the same thing, again and again, only to be repeatedly told by Jesus that He meant what He was saying and was not speaking symbolically. It is hard when we use the term "literally" because, when reason prevails, we are not literally eating flesh and blood. This is the Eucharistic Mystery. C.S. Lewis said
"The command, after all, was, 'Take and eat', NOT take and understand." But it is also important to recognize the difference between Jesus alive and the events at Calvary. Do this in memory of me. This is my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. This is mystery from mystery as the Eucharist is the realization of the Paschal Mystery. In death, Jesus took the place of the lamb of the Passover feast: He became the sacrificial lamb, He became manna from heaven.
Why does it matter?
Is the issue of Transubstantiation important enough to drive Catholics and Protestants apart? It shouldn't be. Catholics often use the wrong language when describing the Eucharist, usually sticking by the term "literally" too closely while not focusing on the mysteries and the whole of Scriptural backing for this doctrine. Transubstantiation is and should be a very minor issue as it does not contradict any of the basic tenets of faith that we share.
A Protestant friend has raised the issue of non-Catholics receiving the Eucharist at Mass. It is important to understand that there are many reasons that non-Catholics should not receive communion in a Catholic Church:
- It would demonstrate a lack of honesty with oneself and the Church to receive communion under false pretenses. If you do not believe the consecration of the priest meant anything, if you do not believe that you are experiencing anything different than what you experience in any Protestant church, if you reject many of the other doctrines of the Church in which you are asking to take part of the most blessed function, then why would you want to receive communion under these circumstances? Why participate in something for which you reject the effects?
- As I mentioned, the Eucharist must only be received when completely free of sin. However, Protestants reject this very premise. If you do not believe that you can be even temporarily free of the effects of sin, as demanded by the Sacrament, then how can you honestly receive the Sacrament? Again, you would be receiving under false pretenses. Why? This is in no way an attack on my friend or Protestants; I understand his point but it can be likened to a liberal registering as a Republican, a hunter joining PETA, or me, a person who hates guns, joining the NRA. It would be participation based upon a lie and unfair to oneself or the true members of those groups. They are not rejecting us, we are rejecting ourselves based upon our beliefs.
In conclusion, Christ did not just want us to be with Him when receiving communion. He wanted Himself to be with us in a real and tangible way. This is why he told us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is not enough to believe that he is kind of with us and maybe somewhere in the room. We genuflect to Him as He is right there in front of us as our King. We accept Him, again and again, in memory of Him as He commanded. We are never personally closer to Him than at this time.
What are your beliefs on communion and the Eucharist?
Premium
Comments (39)
As I said on her site, I don't agree with the Catholic beliefs on this, but it is interesting to see a little bit into why they believe what they do.
Sadly it is something that really separates us (Protestants) from our Catholic brethren. I wish we could look passed our differences and have communion together.
This is the best explanation I have ever heard from a Catholic.....and I grew up in a Catholic family, attended Catholic school, and received first communion in the Catholic Church! I'm still not sure I believe it but it no longer sounds as bizarre as it used to (thanks to you and Canicus). I'm also glad to hear you don't consider it a dividing factor.
Are you a Catholic? If so, you do not understand your own faith. The Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Transubstantiation--the substance of the bread & wine actually changes. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1333) "At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine
that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit,
become Christ's Body and Blood." Not symbols, but the actual Body & Blood. We consume Christ Himself. The appearance is referred to as the "accidents". Early Christians were indeed accused of cannibalism, because the Church has always taught the doctrine of transubstantiation. I was a Fundamentalist evangelical Protestant who converted to the Roman Catholic Church in 2004. I was raised to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, without error, and literally true. What a surprise it was for me to find that it is the Catholic Church which takes Christ literally at His word in John 6. The Real Presence is why Catholics genuflect in front of the Tabernacle--Jesus is truly present in the Church. Of course Protestants don't accept this teaching. They walked away from the Church & her teachings some 500 years ago & now have a mish mosh of denominations & doctrines. The Protestants can't decide on: baptism--sprinkle or dunk, child or adult--communion--weekly, monthly, leavened/unleavened bread, wine/juice--then there is the whole spectrum of eschatology--pretrib, midtrib or post-trib Rapture? Millenial or amillenial? Let's face it--you could put any doctrine on revelife & get a zillion different Protestant points of view. My advice? Come home to Rome. One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.
Catholics often use the wrong language when describing the
Eucharist, usually sticking by the term "literally" too closely while
not focusing on the mysteries and the whole of Scriptural backing for
this doctrine.
Why do they do this?
bold post.. props for even trying to talk about anything Catholic on here.
look up Eucharistic Miracles. there are, without a doubt, times when the consecrated Host does visibly transform into flesh and blood. also see CCC1416 "Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins."
Godspeed.
Are you saying that you do not believe that the Eucharist becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ? I had always understood the RCC to teach that and from the CCC I had gotten that impression. Most RCs, including priests, I've spoken to, have said that, and the literature explains it in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics (substance and accidents).
From our perspective, if what you are saying is true, then that is one more barrier in talks between the Orthodox Church and the RCC. We believe, and indeed require, a belief in the Real Presence. As one preparatory prayer says, "I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood" (a preparatory prayer of St. John Chrysostom). This would be a major issue indeed. From our perspective it would be a massive departure from apostolic doctrine, and I suspect there are many RCs who will take issue with it on those grounds.
So when you poop out the digested bread, it's still the body of Christ? I don't know, but I still think it's more of a symbolic action. God is present in the church because God is present in us. We are the temple of God.
@Andrew Yip - So when you poop out the digested bread, it's still the body of Christ?
The material that exits the body through the anal orifice is waste. The Body and Blood of Christ provides total nourishment as so there is nothing wasted.
If a forensic analysis demonstrated that the Host was deficated that would most likely point to the unworthiness of the communicant.
We are the temple of God.
Physically or symbolically?
You cannot reasonably diss the Body of Christ by calling it symbolic and then elevate the body of man to the literal temple of God. It is precisely the ingestion of the actual Body and Blood of Christ during Eucharist that makes our physical, human body literally a temple of God.
Because God is everywhere the entire universe is his temple. But during his ministry Jesus revealed to man the intimate nature of our familial relationship with God.
Saying that the sacrament of Eucharist is symbolic quite literally denigrates the love of God because the love that God has for us is absolutely literal. This is the fundamental problem with Protestantism: it denigrates the love of God by turning it from something literal into something symbolic.
Within the meaning of covenant is the exchange of persons. That means that in a covenant each party to the covenant literally gives his entire person to the other.
God gave his entire person to each one of us through his Son Jesus. The entire meaning of the New Covenant is contained in the Eucharist. God did not give his entire person to us symbolically but quite literally in the greatest act of love in the entire universe: the Eucharist.
Learned a lot from this post!
Is the bread and wine being worshipped during this?I explained my own views on the Eucharist and Transubstantiation in the other entry. I'm not sure why the Revelife crew saw it necessary to feature another entry devoted to the same topic, as the comments section in the other entry was sufficient to express both views.
In summary, much of where we extract the idea for transubstantiation from are the letters of the post-apostlic church fathers. It's true that some of them have expressed heretical views, some of which are the basis of the Roman Catholic church's doctrine. The possibility of the existence of heretical views is exactly why Protestantism and true Christianity only accepts as canon the letters of those who knew Jesus Christ, trusting the apostles who physically met Him.
But even the letters of the early church fathers have to be distorted to mean something that they did not intend. The earliest of which, Ignatius, addressed the problem of dotecism, which was the belief that after Jesus was resurrected, he was not a flesh-and-blood physical being. Ignatius, in Against Marcion, penned, "Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body."
When Ignatius called the bread a figure of Jesus Christ's body, he was expressing that he understood its symbolic value.
As I shared in the other entry, Justin Martyr's letters were used inappropriately to justify transubstantiation. But as it is shown here, he too understood the figurative value of the new covenant symbols of bread and wine: "Now it is evident, that in this prophecy to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks"
Justin is saying that we drink bread and wine in remembrance of Christ being made flesh and blood. Justin makes the distinction between the flesh and blood being different from the bread and wine by saying that we partake in them in remembrance.
Augustine is a later source of this misconception, however, he too understood the figurative value of the bread and wine. In his words:
-"The Lord did not hesitate to say: 'This is My Body', when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant). Augustine called them a sign.
-"He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3). Augustine called them a figure.
-"[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface). He couldn't be any more clear.
Though the Roman Catholic church would have you believe that transubstantiation was practiced from the very first century, it wasn't until the ninth century that this emergent doctrine would show itself, with the writings of Paschasius Radbertus. He was opposed by Ratramnus, who preceded him as Abbot of Corbie, along with Charles the Bald, who called the bread and wine metaphorical. It wasn't until the Lateran council in the thirteenth century that this became official doctrine in the Roman Catholic church. Radbertus' work was canonized, while Ratramnus' work was placed among the forbidden books.
Transubstantiation wasn't an idea until the ninth century, and it didn't become church doctrine until the thirteenth century. These are remarkably late dates.
Bread and wine were chosen as new covenant symbols for the reason that there is a lesson to learn from them. Salvation, and the nourishment of our souls, was only made possible because Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and we are saved when we partake in His sacrifice. In the same way that food and drink nourish our bodies, God nourishes our souls.
@interstellarmachine@xanga - Is the bread and wine being worshipped during this?
It is God who is worshipped during the Mass. Jesus revealed the name of God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Human beings are able to worship God fully through Jesus Christ. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ.
@CoG_Love - Though the Roman Catholic church would have you believe that transubstantiation was practiced from the very first century, it wasn't until the ninth century that this emergent doctrine would show itself, with the writings of Paschasius Radbertus.
Since you have rejected the Church that Jesus created and the doctrines that Jesus gave to it you have no authority or standing to teach against them. Consequently, your comments reduce themselves to nothing but agenda driven Protestant poppy cock.
Assuming such teaching authority and standing is the product of pure, undiluted arrogance. That pure, undiluted arrogance is a fundamental problem at the foundation of the Protestant heresy.
You can string together all the quotes you want and twist their meaning all you want. But it is an absolute fact that the Church has always viewed the Eucharist as the actual, Real Presence of Jesus, his Body and his Blood, his substance.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - "Since you have rejected the Church that
Jesus created and the doctrines that Jesus gave to it you have no
authority or standing to teach against them."
Jesus Christ did not invent the Roman Catholic system.
"Consequently, your
comments reduce themselves to nothing but agenda driven Protestant
poppy cock.Assuming such teaching authority and standing
is the product of pure, undiluted arrogance. That pure, undiluted
arrogance is a fundamental problem at the foundation of the Protestant
heresy."
I'm not a Protestant. There are more than two denominations.
"You can string together all the quotes you want and
twist their meaning all you want. But it is an absolute fact that the
Church has always viewed the Eucharist as the actual, Real Presence of
Jesus, his Body and his Blood, his substance."
I think I've proven that it's the Roman Catholic system that has done the twisting. If you care to prove otherwise, take a little bit of time to share an intellectual insight. That's what everyone else here is doing.
@CoG_Love - I think I've proven that it's the Roman Catholic system that has done the twisting.
You've proven nothing. Like I said, you have only tainted Apostolic teachings by stringing together a few cherry picked quotes and then offering your own personal interpretation of those quotes. That is not proof.
Jesus gave his teaching authority to the Church, not to you, not to Luther, not to Calvin. The saying goes that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
You quack like a Protestant.
Neither Christianity nor human understanding of it sprang forth fully mature. As a consequence it is totally natural to witness development in these areas. But since Christianity is embedded among men, there will always be a tension between theology and what men do. There will always need to be an openness to correction.
But that tension does not exist with regard to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The doctrines of Trinity, the Incarnation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist form the bed rock of orthodox Christian teaching.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - "Neither Christianity nor human understanding
of it sprang forth fully mature. As a consequence it is totally
natural to witness development in these areas."
Are you saying that the message of Jesus Christ was incomplete? Are you admitting that the early Church eventually "developed" into the Roman Catholic system?
@CoG_Love - Are you saying that the message of Jesus Christ was incomplete?
No. I said that our understanding of it develops over time.
Are you admitting that the early Church eventually "developed" into the Roman Catholic system?
It is impossible for me to deny that. But the doctrines of the "Roman System" no matter what the era have remained the same. Only the Protestants and other heretics have created innovations in the original teachings of the Apostles.
The Church environment of Peter and Paul took place in lands dominated by the Roman Empire. The Church grew into one of the most power institutions in the world as it filled the breach left by the falling Roman Empire.
But for the purposes of the topic of Transubstantiation the development of the "Roman System" is irrelevant.
As I said before the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is bedrock orthodox Christian doctrine. Only heretics have risen up against this doctrine and the Church stood against them.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared beyond doubt that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is orthodox teaching.
i find it strange, as a non-Christian, that Protestants have no trouble believing other supernatural, and somewhat pagan, aspects of the faith (virgin birth, people coming back from the dead, walking on water, healing people, parting the Red Sea, etc), but they question transubstantiation. from an outsider's perspective, i don't see any reason to take, "This is my body, this is my blood" as a symbolic gesture.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - "No. I said that our understanding of it develops over time."
Who could have a better knowledge than those who were physically present when Jesus Christ taught? This is the basis for the Biblical canon.
"But the doctrines of the "Roman System" no matter what the era have remained the same."
Transubstantiation itself is an innovation. It didn't become an official doctrine until the thirteenth century.
"Only the Protestants and other heretics have created innovations in the original teachings of the Apostles."
All they've done is remove some Catholic innovation. Sadly, the Protestant reformation wasn't sweeping enough.
"The Church environment of Peter and Paul
took place in lands dominated by the Roman Empire. The Church grew
into one of the most power institutions in the world as it filled the
breach left by the falling Roman Empire."
Jesus Christ said that "My kingdom is not of this world." The Roman Catholic system is not the kingdom Christ envisioned, it's little more that Constantine's church/state alliance. Jesus Christ is coming back soon, and that is when He will establish His kingdom.
"Only heretics have risen up against this doctrine and the Church stood against them."
If by "stood against them" you mean "had them murdered", then yes, Catholicism stood up against them. As it stands today, Catholicism is the only denomination guilty of mass murder. If you're not going to admit that the people that they killed were theologically in the right, at least admit that as a church, the Roman Catholic system had absolutely no right to take a human life.
"The Council of Trent in the 16th century
declared beyond doubt that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
is orthodox teaching."
That's your stunning proof? That's even later than the 13th century date I gave.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Jesus Christ also said, "I am the vine", and I don't see the doctrine of Jesus the human vine anywhere. I can only hope I didn't just give anyone any ideas. Jesus Christ also said "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". The disciples took His words literally, and He corrected them. Jesus Christ often spoke figuratively.
The same Augustine from which Catholics take the false conclusion of transubstantiation also says: "to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage" (On Christian Doctrine 3,9). Do I really have to say more?
@CoG_Love - your Christ also said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light." can i assume he wasn't speaking literally here, either? what about when he said he's the Son of God, or when he describes the coming of the Kingdom of God?
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Does a person who speaks figuratively have to speak figuratively every waking moment of their lives?
@CoG_Love - no... but it seems to me that when one has to choose what to take literally or figuratively, the only sources you have are literary context and tradition. even though i was raised Protestant, i believed in transubstantiation because i never heard any convincing reason to go against Catholic tradition, other than, "We feel weird saying we eat Christ's body and drink Christ's blood." and considering how many other similarly problematic are dismissed by Protestants by a simple, "It's a mystery, all you have to do is believe", i don't see that to be a valid argument.
@CoG_Love - Let's take your errors one at a time:
1. Who could have a better knowledge than those who were physically present when Jesus Christ taught? This is the basis for the Biblical canon.
The Bible canon of Martin Luther was the Jewish canon of 70AD. That canon had 5 less books than the Bible that Jesus and the Apostles prayed from. The Christian canon of 382AD commissioned by Pope Damasus I was the canon used by all Christians up to the time of Luther. So the Protestant bible is an innovation of Protestants.
2.Transubstantiation itself is an innovation. It didn't become an official doctrine until the thirteenth century.
False. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has been practiced unchallenged until 1088AD. From the New Advent website, an official, scholarly website concerning proof of the Real Presense from tradition:
The Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088)... go here to see the complete treatment of the topic, proof from Scripture and proof from tradition.
3. All they've done is remove some Catholic innovation. Sadly, the Protestant reformation wasn't sweeping enough.
False. Sola scriptura is only one of many Protestant innovations that is neither taught by Scripture or Tradition. You fail to name even one Catholic innovation. I have just shown that the Catholic Bible canon is not an innovation and that neither is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
4. Jesus Christ said that "My kingdom is not of this world." The Roman Catholic system is not the kingdom Christ envisioned, it's little more that Constantine's church/state alliance.
Again, false. You have no idea what Jesus invisions and neither does anyone else. The pretense that you are somehow enlightened is another example of profound arrogance. Since no one knows Jesus' vision in this regard we must all do the best we can.
Saint Peter wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed yet Jesus appointed him the Prime Apostle. That Peter was the Prime Apostle is evident from Scripture. The physical institution of the Church is always at odds in some way with the theology of Christianity. But that is just the way things are in the universe we live in.
Accepting that reality does not mean in any way that we must forsake the Church as the Protestants did. In fact Jesus requires unity. So we must all forsake divisive doctrine and stay united in one Church.
5. If by "stood against them" you mean "had them murdered", then yes, Catholicism stood up against them. As it stands today, Catholicism is the only denomination guilty of mass murder.
Individual Protestants can be just as murderous. Men who commit murder violate the Commandment against murder. Murder is not Church doctrine.
So all of your points were shown to be in error according to orthodox Christian teaching and simple reason.
In the past, I used to be excessively obsessed with the theology, but now, I personally am more into doing good work and talking about Jesus in a more simplified manner (you know, omitting as many jargons and complex concepts). My family has always been Protestant, and they do not like the idea of me converting into a Catholic, but I have actually always been closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism. Now, I think I don't really care whether I am a Catholic or a Protestant, I am just a Christian, that's all. Logically, I kinda have a bad feeling about this whole issue of Jesus turning into bread and wine while still maintaining their "breadness" and "wineness" chemically. At first, I had no problem accepting this concept but now I kinda fringe in front of this concept. Why? Not because I have become skeptical, it may be true; but I am afraid that it is kinda cannabalistic in some ways. Although I don't believe that this concept is central to my faith (or Christian faith in general), I find this increasingly unacceptable as time goes by. I dunno why though...
@CoG_Love - Dude! Transubstantiation is true because the RCC says it's true! It's also "always" been the tradition because the RCC says it's been the tradition! Never mind the writings of the early church fathers and their conflicting views!