How can we ever doubt what Jesus tells us? Why would Protestants have difficulty with what Jesus said in that same chapter? I’m going to reiterate further on that next time in class. What are your thoughts?
Well, the word transubstantiation is a much better wording for what used to be called
transmutation, since it specifies just “what” matter is being changed: the
substance. It requires, of course, some theological knowledge to understand what substance means in this context. But some knowledge is also needed to understand the difference between
latria and
dulia - which the protestants tend to disregard despite its crucial importance.
In short: my personal view is that the “reform” simply took things away - namely, by sola scriptura it took away the whole
corpus of the Sacred Tradition (which we know to be
one with Sacred Scripture) but at the same time the new (heretic) doctrines came up with their own distorted interpretations of just what the Bread of Life is - from those who entirely deny the Real Presence to to Luther, who acknowledged the Real Presence but in his anti-Church attitude attempted to “re-interpret” it as “sacramental union” (see
post):
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? …] Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous …] ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Perhaps showing the wide variety of “protestant doctrines” on the Holy Eucharist (despite the fact that every such doctrine relies on some sort of tradition or interpretation and denies the very idea of “sola scriptura”) suffices to give a good idea of just how big the trouble is on their side (especially given the clean-cut statement of 1 Corinthians 11:29).
The “main” difficulty is one p(name removed by moderator)ointed in the very Scriptures:
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” (Acts 8:30-31)
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me. (Luke 10:16)
The moment that the apostolic teaching authority of the Church is denied, understanding of the Scripture necessarily fails. We cannot give what we do not have (Acts 3:6) but that which we have, we give, under the exhortation to “hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and to “encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9).
Mentioning the solid teaching of Holy Church on the Real Presence and perhaps mentioning some of the most extraordinary Eucharistic miracles (see
here) for those who “will not believe unless they see” can help. Also, the Real Presence is crucial in understanding God’s very plan of salvation - surely inconceivable for those who, in their “protest”, believe that all it takes to go to heaven is to say that we accept Jesus as our savior (an intolerable sin of presumption against the Holy Spirit and a contradiction of the Scripture, for instance Mt 7:21). The Bread that comes from heaven is ever present in the Old Testament - from the manna in the desert to the bread given by the angel to the prophet Elijah - and the sacrifice of Melchizedek is even mentioned in Holy Mass. The will of Christ to gather all into one mystical body is only realized through the Holy Eucharist (as the writings of the New Testament
clearly teach: “there is one bread, one body, one church”). The topic is so complex and profound that, as you wisely said, we should truly learn more and more every day of our life about the Holy Eucharist.
…] the two will become one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I refer to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:32)
