How to deal with objections to transsubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kristina_P
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kristina-

I was reading a page at “Matt’s Apologetics” site the other day that I found helpful. On one hand, it deals with Protestant objections to the Eucharist, on the other hand, it shows how the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the OT and indeed a Sacrifice.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/sacrifice.html

I particularly am fascinated by the part which talks about the Melchezidek part, and how Christ is the Lamb that is sacrificed-- remember that the Jews had to *eat *the lamb! I was going to start quoting liberally from it, but I don’t see the point. Part III onward deals with this part, which I really encourage you to read. But the whole thing is probably good enough to dispel some of the weaker objections and to understand what the Church has always taught.

God Bless, and good luck.

-Rob
 
Apologies for an error a couple of posts up the thread: I referred to Sandusky as “kaycee.” Thanks to Scylla for pointing it out to me in a PM.
 
Kristina P.:
I’m a Protestant investigating the claims of the Catholic church (honestly looking for the truth, not a fight), and I’ve run across some Protestant objections (from www.carm.org/catholic) to the doctrine of transsubstantiation that I’ve not seen addressed elsewhere. They are these:
  1. There is no indication that the disciples worshipped the elements.
    Now, I know that the Church can claim that the early church fathers believed in transsubstantiation, but why no New Testament mention of worshiping the elements?
  2. The supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion.
    How can Christ give his disciples his real body and blood before he has actually sacrificed himself?
  3. The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.
    Yes, it seems a little picky, but isn’t cannibalism and the drinking of blood still a violation of the law, especially considering that the particular dietary stipulation about blood was carried even into the new covenant?
  4. It is a violation of the Incarnation.
    Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent. This seems to be the crux of the argument.
  5. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.
    I’ll just quote the guy here: “In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.”
    How does the Catholic Church counter these arguments? The author of the website writes as though there are no counters, but I just can’t imagine that with a 2,000 year history, the Church has never dealt with this.
Click to expand...
  1. Nobody worships “elements.” The consecrated host is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It looks like bread, but it is not bread.
  2. He had to show His disciples what he was talking about in John 6 in preparation for the Crucifixion.
  3. Addressed in John 6, He says that He is going up to heaven, so it isn’t cannibalism in the sense of consuming the flesh of a human being until it is depleted. However, the Jews rightly were understanding His words from John 6, translates as “to gnaw”. Too bad most of them left before He could explain it (at the Last Supper.)
  4. Jesus is God. He is not just a man. If He wants to do something, He does it. By nature, a man dead for four days cannot come back to life, but Lazarus did by the power of Christ. By nature, water cannot become wine, but it did by the power of Christ.
  5. At Mass we do not “re-crucify” Christ. It is not Jesus dying all over again. The Mass IS a sacrifice…it is the one and only sacrifice of Calvary made present for us to benefit from it. It is a mystery.
 
Kristina P.:
I’m a Protestant investigating the claims of the Catholic church (honestly looking for the truth, not a fight), and I’ve run across some Protestant objections (from www.carm.org/catholic) to the doctrine of transsubstantiation that I’ve not seen addressed elsewhere. They are these:
  1. There is no indication that the disciples worshipped the elements.
    Now, I know that the Church can claim that the early church fathers believed in transsubstantiation, but why no New Testament mention of worshiping the elements?
Click to expand...
I don’t know why God chose not to mention this. We do have Paul’s words about eating and drinking judgement on oneself, which makes no sense in the context of a symbolic-only Eucharist
  1. The supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion.
    How can Christ give his disciples his real body and blood before he has actually sacrificed himself?
Click to expand...
God is outside of time. Christ’s sacrifice is also outside of time. Thus He said “this is my body which is given…” and “this is my blood…which is poured out…” He clearly spoke of His sacrifice in the present, not in the future.
  1. The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law.
    Yes, it seems a little picky, but isn’t cannibalism and the drinking of blood still a violation of the law, especially considering that the particular dietary stipulation about blood was carried even into the new covenant?
Click to expand...
Levitical law says nothing about eating the flesh or drinking the blood of God incarnate. In fact, the very reason for the prohibition against drinking blood (the life is in the blood) makes it clear why we are to drink Christ’s blood – so that we may have His life.
  1. It is a violation of the Incarnation.
    Apparently, by nature man cannot be omnipresent, and so Christ’s body cannot be omnipresent. This seems to be the crux of the argument.
Click to expand...
Christ is not a man. That is, He is not just a man. Can God incarnate provide His glorified body in more than one place (not omnipresent, BTW)? How can anybody insist this is not possible?
  1. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ.
    I’ll just quote the guy here: “In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.”
Click to expand...
Christ’s sacrifice is outside of time, although it was also enacted in time in bloody fashion at Calvary. Christ is our High Priest, but a priest must offer sacrifice. If Christ is no longer offering His sacrifice then He is no longer our High Priest.

Further, at the Mass His sacrifice is not repeated, it is re-presented, made present again. It is made present again so that every Christian may join in with it (our God is a generous God!). Remember also that it was not enough to sacrifice the Passover lamb, but its flesh had to be eaten. It is in the Mass, in the Eucharist, that every Christian is given the flesh of the Sacrificial Lamb to eat.

One last point. Before the Reformation the entire Church had always accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Was the entire Church deceived on such a fundamental point for 1500 years?
 
Kristina P.:
Thanks for the help. I knew there had to be answers to those objections, but I just couldn’t find them. You folks here are great. Hope you don’t mind my “trotting out old heresies” in my search for the truth. I’ve got to be ready to answer all the Baptists in my family, including a brother-in-law who’s a pastor, before I try to explain to them why I’m enrolling in RCIA classes.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that not only does the Catholic Church have the answers to these objections, but in the answers you will find an incredibly beauty and self-giving, one that will make you gasp in awe at what God has done and continues to do for us.
 
chadwilliams said:
1. Nobody worships “elements.” The consecrated host is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It looks like bread, but it is not bread.
Click to expand...

Good point. I’m glad you caught that.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Similar warnings are given in Heb 6:6 and Heb 10:29. It is not necessary for the body and blood of Christ to be physically present in order for one to either crucify it, or trample it under foot. By the same token, it is also murder just by thinking and speaking angrily to someone (Mt 5:21); and it is also adultery to look with lust (Mt 5:28). 1 Cor 11 does not prove transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
No one would argue with your understanding of these verses. The problem with your assertion is that you are not accepting the context as it applies in each case. The context of 1 Cor 11 is better understood in context of the Discourse on the Bread of Life in John’s gospel. Both pertain to the very literal and graphic terms of Jesus promise to give us His precious body and blood as “true food” and “true drink.” This is not the context of Hebrews 6:6 which is talking about apostasy. While apostasy may include a rejection of the Eucharist, it is clear that the context of Hebrews is not the same as that of John Chapter 6 and 1 Cor 11. Each have to be taken as they are. You cannot simply say that 1 Cor 11 doesn’t speak of the true presence based on the Book of Hebrews. There is nothing logical or exegetically sound in attempting to do so.
 
40.png
VociMike:
God is outside of time. Christ’s sacrifice is also outside of time. Thus He said “this is my body which is given…” and “this is my blood…which is poured out…” He clearly spoke of His sacrifice in the present, not in the future.

Levitical law says nothing about eating the flesh or drinking the blood of God incarnate. In fact, the very reason for the prohibition against drinking blood (the life is in the blood) makes it clear why we are to drink Christ’s blood – so that we may have His life.

Christ is our High Priest, but a priest must offer sacrifice. If Christ is no longer offering His sacrifice then He is no longer our High Priest.

Remember also that it was not enough to sacrifice the Passover lamb, but its flesh had to be eaten. It is in the Mass, in the Eucharist, that every Christian is given the flesh of the Sacrificial Lamb to eat.
Click to expand...
All very interesting points! Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top