My reply to a protestant article opposed to transubstantiation

[Catholig]

I wrote the letter below in response to an article titled Roman Catholics and Communion posted on the website of one Dan Corner - I’d like it if you’ll all look at it and at his original article and tell me how I did.

Catholig

P.s. I attribute the entire thing to Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Mother Deo gratias!

 

[Catholig]

This e-mail is in response to your article “Roman Catholics and Communion”.

I read your article and find it lacking, in that you never explained what John 6:53 (Jn 6:54 in the Douai-Rheims Bible and the Clementine Vulgate) should actually mean if not what Jesus says. And why his disciples would think this teaching hard, and would be scandalized if Jesus wasn’t speaking literally. (Jn 6:61-62)

Also you neglect the passages of the last supper when Jesus in three out of the four gospels broke bread and said the words “This is my body” (Mt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19) and in the same Gospels consecrated wine in like matter!

And you lack to explain how we should interpret the following passages from first Corinthians:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Why if not to protect his own blessed body from profanation would Our Lord make such a statement?

Also I would like to address the point you made concerning Jesus’ changing water into wine, and how it relates to the transubstantiation of bread and wine for communion. First of all though you’ll have to understand that the Catholic Church teaches that there is the substance of something (i.e. what it really is) and then the accidents which are its physical traits (e.g. How it tastes, how it smells, how it feels). So while Jesus, in his omnipotence, have changed the water into wine without altering the accidents he chose instead to change both – and the reason for this is obvious, namely, that the people at the party were not seeking simply to receive the substance of wine, but to taste it, and to be effected by it. If Jesus were to have changed only the substance of the wine – it would practically have been useless. On the other hand, when a catholic goes up to receive communion, he doesn’t seek the accidents, but the substance. That means that he is not receiving the bread to be fed physically, but to be fed spiritually. He goes up to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And while God has at times altered the accidents of the gifts during consecration – and afterwards, because after consecration the substance of the Eucharist never changes back – it would be impractical to do so. The reason being that if every time a catholic went to receive Holy Communion he had to taste the blood, and flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ some people, sadly could not bear it, and as a result would cause Our Lord great suffering by not doing what he asked and receive him. It is one thing to know something intellectually, another to experience it first hand.

I would also like you to read a few verses below which I feel show the difference between substance and accidents:

29 And whilst he prayed, the shape of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became white and glittering.

The above verse is from Luke 9:26 and it clearly shows Jesus changing his accidents (i.e. his physical appearance, and weak human form) for a brief time to reflect his 1) divine nature 2) perfected body (i.e. the body he had after his crucifixion when he walked through walls, and the type of body we will have after we are risen).

And the second is:

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

This passage (Mt 16:16-17) again shows that there are this indiscernable to the senses which must be revealed by the spirit - or in other words that the substance isn’t always apparent when examining the accidents.

That being said, as I mentioned at the end of my rebuttal to you contrasting of the transubstantiation, which takes place at the consecration to the miracle preformed by Jesus at the Wedding of Cana, there are times when Our Lord Jesus Christ deigns to alter both the substance and the accidents when he transforms the bread and wine into his body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is known commonly as a “eucharistic miracle” and is a rare phenomenon - meaning that it is important only to accept those miracles approved by the Church. A few resources for this are -

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
circleofprayer.com/eucharistic-miracles.html

Cont.

 

[Catholig]

Cont.

Now that I have replied to your article I will make a few points of my own concerning the consecration:

1. As far as I know ever apostolic Church (i.e. Church’s that have bishops who clergy that descended through apostolic succesion from the apostles, such as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, et cetera) accept transubstantiation so there is good cause to believe that Jesus’ disciples took him at his word.
2. The early Christians (e.g. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, et cetera) believed in the real presence - and you can see for yourself by viewing the following website.

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

1. To my mind the main reason for the denial of the real presence by certain protestants (N.B. some protestants such as Lutherans, High Anglicans, and some Episcopals believe in the real presence) is that if they were to admit it they’d have to examine why certain people can consecrate the bread and wine and others can’t, and that would ultimately lead to an acceptance of apostolic sucession - something that protestant “bible christians” don’t have. In other words it would reveal protestant ordinations to be invalid.

 

[Spirithound]

I wrote the letter below in response to an article titled Roman Catholics and Communion posted on the website of one Dan Corner - I’d like it if you’ll all look at it and at his original article and tell me how I did.

Catholig

P.s. I attribute the entire thing to Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Mother Deo gratias!

Your email was good in that it clearly explains the Catholic position, citing several very important verses to back it up, along with ECFs. It was, however, lacking in one area. You neglected to respond to Mr. Corner’s assertion that there is a contradiction between the verse saying unless you eat the flesh, you have no life in you, and the Good Thief, and Zaccheus, and countless others who have never received the Eucharist and yet may be in heaven. This is actually a question of mine also. Does anyone have an answer?

 

[Catholig]

Your email was good in that it clearly explains the Catholic position, citing several very important verses to back it up, along with ECFs. It was, however, lacking in one area. You neglected to respond to Mr. Corner’s assertion that there is a contradiction between the verse saying unless you eat the flesh, you have no life in you, and the Good Thief, and Zaccheus, and countless others who have never received the Eucharist and yet may be in heaven. This is actually a question of mine also. Does anyone have an answer?

I didn’t really know how to answer that - but at the time I felt that he was trying to link two passages that were never meant to be linked.

One thought that comes to mind though is simply the question - what does “have life within you” mean? Is it simply a reference to having Jesus the Author of life in you - or is it a reference to having eternal life? Because if the latter - well Catholics don’t believe you’re going to hell if you don’t receive communion.

Catholig

 

[MarcoPolo]

the Good Thief, and Zaccheus, and countless others who have never received the Eucharist and yet may be in heaven. This is actually a question of mine also. Does anyone have an answer?

This answer is simply that it is understood if it is reasonably possible for that person, he should receive Christ normatively.

Consider how often times when someone is “unable” to come to Jesus or receive Him properly…that someone does it on that person’s behalf. Like the sick servant of the centurian is healed because of the centurian (Matthew 8:5-13), who vouched for the “unable” servant. Then there’s the paralytic who is brought to Christ on behalf of other believers because he was “unable” to do so on his own. The paralytic was healed because of the faith of the others (Mark 2:1-5).

In short, there are those who in their hearts would receive Christ properly if given the opportunity they do not have. They are saved through the faith of the Church.

The premise is the same for infant baptism…like the servant or the paralytic, the children are “unable” to receive a “believer’s” baptism, yet it is through the faith of the Church by which they are brought into Christ.

 

[VociMike]

Your email was good in that it clearly explains the Catholic position, citing several very important verses to back it up, along with ECFs. It was, however, lacking in one area. You neglected to respond to Mr. Corner’s assertion that there is a contradiction between the verse saying unless you eat the flesh, you have no life in you, and the Good Thief, and Zaccheus, and countless others who have never received the Eucharist and yet may be in heaven. This is actually a question of mine also. Does anyone have an answer?

Me, me, pick me!

I actually love the subtlety and precision with which Our Lord speaks in this matter in John 6:

[53]So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Notice how Christ goes from the particular (“you”) in v.53 to the general (“he”, that is, any person) in v.54. Why does he do this? Because those who will have no life in them if they do not partake of the Eucharist is not everybody, but those to whom the truth and the necessity of the Eucharist has been revealed. In v.53 Christ is saying “I have told you of the necessity. If you still reject me, you will have no life in you”.

But in v.54 he makes a much wider statement. Everybody who partakes of the Eucharist (worthily, as Paul later clarifies) has eternal life. To partake worthily of the Eucharist throughout one’s life is to be in a state of grace and to have the promise of eternal life.

So you see that Christ has said nothing about those to whom the truth and the necessity of the Eucharist have not been preached. They are not held accountable for not doing what they have not been told to do.

Thus v.53-54 is both a re-affirmation of God’s promise to the faithful, and a warning that those who reject Christ, who disobey him, will have no life in them.

 

[Spirithound]

Notice how Christ goes from the particular (“you”) in v.53 to the general (“he”, that is, any person) in v.54.

Awesome! Thanks Mike!

 

[ChadS]

I wrote the letter below in response to an article titled Roman Catholics and Communion posted on the website of one Dan Corner - I’d like it if you’ll all look at it and at his original article and tell me how I did.

Catholig

P.s. I attribute the entire thing to Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Mother Deo gratias!

I think you did a great job in responding to his article. Just curious – have you heard back from the person running this website at all?

ChadS

 

[scaron]

I read your article and find it lacking, in that you never explained what John 6:53 (Jn 6:54 in the Douai-Rheims Bible and the Clementine Vulgate) should actually mean if not what Jesus says. And why his disciples would think this teaching hard, and would be scandalized if Jesus wasn’t speaking literally. (Jn 6:61-62)

Cont.

I think this is such a telling point (as you can infer from my .sig, below!)

Our Lord is given the opportunity to say - “Hey you heard the bit about eat my body and drink my blood - I get that this is weird, and against the strictest prohibitions of the our (ie. the Jewish) faith. I mean it symbolically! What, did you think I meant my actual flesh? Come on!”

This is not what he says!

He says “I meant what I said!” (he usually does!)

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

And our Lord was very hurt that “many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him” - but, of course, he wasn’t willing to abandon the truth to be popular! He is not a politician, he is the Savior!

As for the part about Eucharistic Worship - Of course we worship the Eucharist! I thought you would hit a home run on this one - it is easy. If you believe that Our Lord, who had the power to create everythingoutof nothing, also has the power to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood on the altar, what else would you do but worship? It cannot be idolatry, if what is being worshiped is God Himself!

I am always mystified by this common Protestant objection. If you believe with all your soul (as Jesus instructed us to do) that present before you on the altar or in the monstrance is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus himself, what can you do but adore and worship him?