"I don’t believe in transubstantiation" (UPDATED)

I've been slowly, since the first of the year, responding to Pastor Pete's stated objections to Catholicism, objections sent to me via email and those he agreed to allow me, as best I can, to answer here on the blog.

 

I've tagged the series in the Plainly Answering Pastor Pete category (you can skim what's been responded to thus far by starting at the bottom of the link and working your way to the top).

 

What follows is yet another of Pastor Pete's objection (and his subsequent expounding):

I don’t believe in transubstantiation (i.e. “the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ.”)  Here’s a funny story (at least to me).  I was talking with a Catholic friend a long time ago about communion.  I had totally gotten the Catholic perspective wrong.  I thought they believed that it literally turned into flesh and blood.  I teased and told him to go take communion and when he came back I would stick my finger down his throat and we would see what came up, bread and wine, or flesh and blood.  LOL  I now understand that the doctrine is not literal.  I am assuming that it is meant to be understood spiritually.  I am guessing it helps worshippers to feel part of the mystical body of Christ.  However, it doesn’t make sense to me.  Aren’t Catholics always a part of the body of Christ, even if they for whatever reason haven’t had communion for a while.  My thoughts:  I believe that communion is an indispensible church rite that affects or can affect worshippers in a profound spiritual way.  In fact, I believe that when taken by faith it has the effect of strengthening or re-strengthening (not sure the best use of words here) the bond we have with Christ.  I guess in a way if reaffirms in the heart of the believer who they belong to (again, not sure the best way to describe.)  But to say “the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ” is untenable to me.  And another point:  Suppose I believe that communion is purely symbolic (which I don’t) and suppose I take communion with all the faith humanly possible and yet don’t know or understand that God may do more in the spiritual realm than I realize, does my lack of understanding prevent God from blessing me more fully (spiritually).   I don’t believe it does.  I’m sure that many catholic’s have no depth of understand of what may or may not take place spiritually when they take communion, but the fact that they take it by faith symbolically or otherwise is what matters.  I don’t see the need to divide people (i.e. differentiate true believers from non-true believers) on this point.  But my lack of belief in transubstantiation as I understand it disqualifies me to be a catholic – correct?

There is no real way, in a single post, to deal with the subject at hand in a comprehensive way.  There simply isn't.  What I can do however is first have the reader (and hopefully Pastor Pete) watch what follows, something that I think gives an excellent introductory perspective to the notion of The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

Key take-aways:

• John 6 quite forcefully gives the Scriptural basis sought to support the notion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  It's revealing and telling that Christ sought not to explain away what he had to say as something merely symbolic but that in effect he doubled down on his teaching even after some of his followers could not accept it.
• The early Church, through the first 1,000 years, believed in the notion of the Real Presence with such stalwarts as St. Augustine, St. Ephraim, St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr being in full support.
• God desires union with us and it is through the Eucharist that He unites with us and us with Him.
• The Eucharist is a means by which we can become Holy

I recall my own struggle with the Real Presence.  

I remember wanting to believe but not quite crossing the chasm that existed.  But then, during RCIA, I had a brief but powerful confession with the priest who is now my pastor and he helped me bridge the divide.  

I've not been the same since. 

Many others have crossed that same divide including Mark Shea:

And the more I read Scripture and church history, the more convinced I became that it was. For Jesus wasn't kidding around when he said, "This is my body. This is my blood." Yes, the Sacrament is symbolic. Even the Catholic Church says so. My mistake, as an Evangelical, was to try to insist that it was only symbolic. But from Jesus (who said, "This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51)) to Paul (who warned the Corinthians that in receiving Eucharist unworthily they would be "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27)) to a host of Fathers, saints, martyrs, virgins, theologians, and doctors of the church, the resounding cry was unanimous: Eucharist was not only symbolic. It was, in the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch (a man who heard St. John the Apostle with his own ears), "the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans). This was why St. John Chrysostom, echoing the unanimous Faith of the first thousand years of the Church, declared of Eucharist: "When you see it exposed, say to yourself: Thanks to this body, I am no longer dust and ashes, I am no more captive but a free man." Indeed, he boldly states, "This is that body which was once covered with blood, pierced by a lance, from which issued saving fountains upon the world, one of blood and the other of water" (Commentary on Corinthians).

In short, I discovered it was my Evangelical "mere symbolism" approach that was the new kid on the block. It was the Catholic picture that was the clear outgrowth of the biblical and patristic data. The Eucharist really was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. It was not only beautiful, it was true and rooted as deeply in the apostolic teaching as the Resurrection. And that was why I came to believe in it and in the rest of the teaching of the Church. Beauty, practicality, comfort, happiness and the rest were glad bonuses, to be sure. But it was truth that won me.

I hope this post serves not as an end-all to Pastor Pete's (and anybody else's) objections but as an appetizer of sorts to seek more on this.  

There is much out there and much I've covered already on the blog (go here, here or here for starters).

Carry on dear reader.

UPDATE: Kathy has in the comments published a link to the transcript of the following Fr. Barron video, one I linked to above, that I think does an outstanding job explaining not only the Real Presence but how mechanically the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.  

Excellent find Kathy:

Comments

[Kathy Brents]

Fr. Robert Barron also explained this really well in the Catholicism series. He talked about how under the proper authority, words have the power to change reality. One example he gave was if I say to you "You're under arrest", it doesn't really mean anything, but if a police officer says to you, "You're under arrest", then you ARE under arrest. His words changed the reality because he has the authority to affect that. Then, Jesus has the authority as far as the Eucharist (which the priest at mass then also has the authority because he is acting "in persona Christi". There is probably a video clip of that somewhere, but here is a link to the transcript.

[D]

A better question to ask may be what did the disciples of Jesus think Jesus said when he said Eat My Flesh.
John 6:
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
John 7:1 7 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

Who are these disciples that left Jesus in John 6:66? They are the same disciples that were with him at the Wedding at Cana: John 2:11 Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him. What precedes the Bread of Life Discourse: The multiplication of the Loaves. Nothing is by accident in Scripture.

Let’s not forget how repulsive it was for a Jew to eat the flesh of a human and drink his blood. It was a death sentence to do it. St. Paul had to overcome this teaching of the Apostles as well. I believe that when a Jewish family sat down for a meal, the patriarch of the family would bless the bread. We see Jesus doing the same thing on the Road to Emmaus. After he takes bread, blesses it, breaks it and gives it, the two disciples recognize him. They rush back to Jerusalem to tell all the disciples of how they recognized him in the “breaking of the bread.” Do you recognize Jesus Christ in the "breaking of the bread?"

Jesus after telling his disciples about eating and drinking his flesh and blood, does not stop them from leaving by throwing up his hands and yelling in a loud voice “Come Back. I’m only talking about eating my flesh and drinking my blood symbolically.” He lets them go. Jesus asks the twelve, Will you go also? What is the response? Jesus doesn’t even tell the Apostles what he meant by this. They accept it by faith like he normally does when they don't understand one of Jesus' teachings.

Nobody is forced to believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. You either recognize Jesus in this Eucharistic meal or you don’t. Will it affect your salvation? I don’t think so. Here is why:

When we pass out of our bodies (die), we, meaning those of us IN CHRIST JESUS, will hear our names called and we will turn around and be greeted by Jesus Christ himself. He will open up the scriptures to us and we will know them perfectly and see him on every page. Then Jesus will sit down with us and he will take Bread, Bless it, Break it and Hand it to us to eat as the first course at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.

So whether you are one who believes in Transubstantiation or one that believes it is symbolic or anywhere in between, as you put that wafer, bread, Eucharist or whatever your denomination calls it, into your mouth, you are none the less, partaking in what Jesus meant this to be. You are doing it in faith. Let’s celebrate that we can all partake of the Bread of Life. It’s when we denigrate how others partake of this Communion, that we again pierce Christ on the Cross.

Let’s look at every Christian with Love and although not all of us agree on Table Fellowship, we can agree that we are partakers of the Divine Nature. Let’s all pray together and rejoice in the Lord always. Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.

In Christ,

Ron Zell