Claims against the Real Presence through Transubstantiation

[irenaeuslyons]

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).>

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[dje14338]

The fifth point is basically correct. However, the Apostle’s belief in transubstantiation goes back to the appearances of Jesus after he was crucified. It is highly likely that Jesus appeared alive after the Apostle’s re-enacted Jesus’ words at the Last Supper.

 

[Richca]

Hi all,

I am in the process of converting to the Roman Catholic Church. I have believed in the idea of transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for some time now. Today, I came across this article and I am not sure how to refute these claims. Though I believe the Church’s teachings, I have been struggling with doubts recently as to whether or not I should enter the Church this Easter. One of the claims that particularly caught my attention is #5. This article has only further confused me and I really need to clear these issues up so that I can have no doubt in my mind that I belong in the Catholic Church and I do believe that is where God wants me to be. Unfortunately, I just am not sure I am getting much out of the RCIA process–not that it is not great at the parish I attend, but there is so much material that it is more than necessary that I research many of these things on my own if I really want to learn. Thank you for all your help. God bless you all.

carm.org/transubstantiation

#5 makes no sense. The catholic Mass is the living memorial of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as Jesus said at the Last Supper “do this in memory of me.” At the Last Supper, Jesus transubstantiated the bread and wine into his sacrificial body and blood which sacrifice took place the next day. The very words of Jesus indicate this, “This is my body, which shall be given up for you,” and “This is my blood…which shall be shed for you and for many.”

An excellent book to read on the history and theology of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is “The Hidden Manna, A Theology of the Eucharist,” by Rev. James T. O’Conner.

 

[Richca]

Hi all,

I am in the process of converting to the Roman Catholic Church. I have believed in the idea of transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for some time now. Today, I came across this article and I am not sure how to refute these claims. Though I believe the Church’s teachings, I have been struggling with doubts recently as to whether or not I should enter the Church this Easter. One of the claims that particularly caught my attention is #5. This article has only further confused me and I really need to clear these issues up so that I can have no doubt in my mind that I belong in the Catholic Church and I do believe that is where God wants me to be. Unfortunately, I just am not sure I am getting much out of the RCIA process–not that it is not great at the parish I attend, but there is so much material that it is more than necessary that I research many of these things on my own if I really want to learn. Thank you for all your help. God bless you all.

carm.org/transubstantiation

#7 is an argument against catholic teaching that is not catholic teaching. St Thomas Aquinas taught in his theology of the Eucharist that the body and blood of Christ are contained under the appearances of the bread and wine though not as if they are in a place. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says “The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the sacrament as in a place.” And Pope Paul VI encyclical MYSTERIUM FIDEI, On the Holy Eucharist,
“once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”

I am not going to digress here into the theology and philosphy of bodies in a place but just to point out that the #7 argument in the link is unfounded. Apparently, the author of this article doesn’t either know or understand the catholic teaching on the mode of Christ’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament. The Council of Trent taught:
“For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe is possible to God.”

The body of Christ is in heaven according to its natural mode of existing, i.e, extended and occupying space just as people saw Him on earth. The whole body and blood of Christ is present in the eucharist not according to its natural mode of existing, extended and occupying space, but according to the manner of substance.

#8 is false. The arthur of the article in the link should read what the fathers of the Church say about the Eucharist, indeed, Holy Scripture itself.
St Paul says “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?..Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, [they sacrifice] to demons,* not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10: 16-21)

The table of the Lord and the table of demons refers to an alter. An alter is something upon which sacrifice is made. The table of the Lord is the alter upon which the living memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is re-enacted. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross fulfilled all the sacrifices of the Old Law. The Mass is the sacrifice of the New Law.

 

[ericc]

carm.org/transubstantiation

Recently I debated with one non-literal believer of the Eucharist. My notes reformatted:

Introduction
Let me start with Nicodemus in John 3:5 where Jesus said that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of heaven.
JN 3:6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.
JN 3:31 He who comes from above, is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven, is above all.

The Bread from Heaven
Jesus said in Jn 6:27
Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.
JN 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat”
JN 6:32 my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Jn 6:35 and 48 I am the bread of life
Jn 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died.
Jn 6:50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
Jn 6:51 …and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.
John 6:54 He who eats(trogon) my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jn 6:55 for my flesh is food indeed (alternate translation: my flesh is real flesh)
Jn 6:56 He who eats(trogon) my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him

In verse 58, he contrast again eating the manna vs eating his flesh.

All these verses highlight one point, eat his flesh for eternal life. Not only he uses the word eat but very descriptive word of gnawing/chewing (Greek word trogon) in verses 54 and 56.

There are some who quote Jn 6:63 to deny the literal command to eat his flesh claiming it is symbolic.

“It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I spoken to you are Spirit and life.”

My response:

(A) All of the verses from John 6:27- 58 not once was it mentioned eating his flesh to be symbolic. They are all literal, eat my flesh, gnaw my flesh. He contrasted eating manna vs his own body. Eating the manna does not give eternal life, his flesh does. Eating manna was literal and historical and non-symbolic (Exodus 16:4). It won’t make sense distinguishing eating manna vs eating a symbolic flesh.

(B) The Jews objected to this teaching V41, but Jesus told them not to in V43. If there was a misunderstanding of what he taught, this would be corrected instantly. The Jews continued to object to this teaching in V52. And yet Jesus continue to tell them to eat his flesh literally. V53-58. I lost count how many times he instructed them to eat his flesh. Because this is a hard saying, Jesus lost many disciples that day. V66. If it was all a misunderstanding, Jesus would be a bad teacher in not correcting them or explained it more clearly. If it was a symbolic matter, it won’t be deemed a hard saying anyway. It is a hard saying because it appears to the Jews to be in non-conformance of their dietary laws or could not visualize how this person can give his flesh for them to eat.

So then how do you interpret Jn 6:63? Look at the introductory verses, Jn 3:6, Jn3:31. It is the Spirit that gives life. Note that S is capitalized. It means the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives life. No objection.

The flesh is no avail. It doesn’t refer to the flesh of Jesus. “The flesh” is used commonly to denote something of earthly nature. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh. The flesh dies. Hence, no avail.

Jn 3:31 is just to highlight that things from heaven is of a superior nature e.g. Jesus came down from heaven to give his bread of life.

“the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” His words refers to all the verses regarding the Bread of Life discourse which runs from Jn 6:27 all the way to verse 58. And eating the Bread of Life gives you eternal life. Spiritually. None of his teachings are symbolic. The Holy Spirit is the giver of life. Understood properly, there is nothing symbolic at all. Lastly Jesus ended with “But there are some of you that do not believe”. So “will you also go away?”Jn 6:67

(C) Answering Point 2 of CARM. Yes, it is bread. Bread of Life after consecration. Before consecration it is normal bread. Yet the writer is clueless how to explain how one can eat ordinary bread unworthily or profane common bread. If one is consuming ordinary bread, how could one bring judgment upon oneself? 1 Cor 11:29.

(D) Answering Point 3 and 4 of CARM. Arguing from silence. A worthless argument. At the last Supper, obviously the apostles really haven’t caught on to Jesus teaching’s. But after his death and resurrection, it became all quite clear, especially after Pentecost.

(E) Answering Point 5 of CARM. The Supper wasn’t concluded till Jesus drank the fourth cup when he claimed “It is finished”Jn 19:30. Scott Hahn wrote about the Fourth Cup. zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html Verses alluding to the fourth cup:
Luke 22:18
Luke 22:42 ending with
John 19:30

continued’

 

[ericc]

carm.org/transubstantiation

continued’

(F) Point 6 of CARM. It was raised that eating flesh is cannibalism and against Jewish laws. Firstly, we receive the Eucharist in the form of bread and wine, not in a cannibalistic form. Catholics discern when it is ordinary bread and when it became consecrated bread. 1 Cor 11:29.

God, being the giver of laws, is not bound by it. He works on Sabbath day, his Father works on Sabbath day (Jn 5:16-17). No one expect God the Father to stop working on every Sabbath day after Creation. If one understand the meaning of “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath”, he would realize that these laws were made for the purpose of man, and not for God. He quoted David eating holy bread even when it is not permitted of him (Luke 6:5). The Jewish Law requires stoning to death of the adulteress, yet he didn’t condemn her (John 8:11). All these objections raised are no different from the Pharisees who looked at law from a legalistic view. The Law says one can not do this and the Pharisees blindly followed it but not in accordance with the spirit of the Law. He wants to replace old useless sacrifices under the Old Covenant with a better sacrifice. If you believe Jesus is God, why do you need to second guess his instructions? Why do you deny his instructions and stick to old covenantal laws? He gave us new commandments and we accept it (at least for us Catholics) e.g. eat his body, confess to one another, do not divorce, love one another. We do not second guess Christ. “Behold, I have come to do your will”. He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. Hebrews 10:9.

Mark Shea has a nice writeup: "There are a number of paradoxes which the gospel teaches. We are not to worship men, but there is one Man whom we absolutely must worship. Human sacrifice is against the will of God, but in one unique case, a human sacrifice was at the heart of God’s plan. In the Old Testament the eating of blood was forbidden since “the blood is the life.” That is, we are not to seek our “life” from creatures. We are to seek it from God. And when God assumes flesh and blood he therefore tells us, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

(G) Point 7 is totally nonsense. Those of the flesh , think like the flesh. Does anyone doubt God can’t do all these? He raised the dead, fed 5000, calm the seas, heal the sick, kick out demons. With God, everything is possible.

(H) Point 8. Obviously the writer didn’t understand that the sacrifice is a perpetual sacrifice for the past, present and future. It is one ongoing sacrifice. The mass is a memorial of that sacrifice, a re-present(make present) of the sacrifice of the cross.
And we are commanded by Christ himself “ Do it in memory of me”. Does the writer intend to second guess Jesus again and disobey?

John Salza has written a book on “The Biblical Basis of the Eucharist” . You may wish to check it out at the library.

For those who have remaining doubts, google for Eucharistic miracles. Many have witnessed it. Not debates about what Jesus could have, should have meant.