Was the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
which was eventually defined by the Catholic Church as transubstantiation,
always taught by the Church?"
I would like to thank Kyle, for this opportunity
for both of us to inform each other and share what we believe and why we
believe what we believe with each other and whoever else my read these debates.
May God use them to help His children grow in the grace and the knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
So the question we are dealing with is about the
historicity of the teaching of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the
history of Christianity, specifically if it has been taught by the Catholic
Church consistently throughout its entire existence. To be clear, the doctrine of
transubstantiation is that “whole substance of the bread is transformed into
the body of Christ and the whole substance of the wine is transformed into the
blood of Christ” (Fundamentals of
Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, pg. 379). It is my
position, as I will demonstrate through this exchange, that the doctrine of
transubstantiation was not taught in the early Church, nor
in the intended teachings of Christ and the apostles, but that the doctrine
developed over time. I will begin with
and follow the order of presentation offered by my Roman Catholic friend.
Hopefully I will finish in this first opening statement, if not I will continue
in my second rebuttal statement.
1) Does scripture speak of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of
Christ?
It was asserted that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is taught in John
6:51-56 in which Christ says, “whoever eats my flesh
and drinks my blood has eternal life.” The question we ask of this text is, “Is
Jesus really teaching about the doctrine of transubstantiation here?” In the context of when this event took place,
this most certainly cannot be the case at all!
We note first that this event did
NOT take place on the night before his death. It took place, probably years
before. We should also note that in context, beginning in verse 26, Jesus tells
the crowd that they are seeking him not because of who He is (which is what
they should be) but rather because of what He has given them physically
(sustenance). Jesus’ reply to them is
essentially that if they are seeking physical fulfillment, they are wasting
their time – “do not labor for the food that perishes…”.
Rather, he reminds them that their true problem is not physical but spiritual –
“…labor…for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man
will give you…”(v27).
When the crowd ask what they must do for this
bread, what does Jesus say to them? “This is the work of God,
that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Now, in the writings of John,
belief is something that the apostle is constantly bringing forth. Remember the
most famous passage of Christianity, John 3:16: “For God so loved the world
that He gave His only Son that whoever believes
in Him…” John, in writing this, is simply being consistent in the request for
faith. Jesus awes his audience by
telling them that He is the “bread of God” essentially saying that He is the
one who fulfills their spiritual hunger/lack just as bread fulfills their
physical hunger/lack.
Now, what we need to note is that
Jesus uses an expression that is meant to convey what it means to “believe” in
Christ as He has already told his audience. He says, “He who comes to me…”.
We note especially the parallel between “coming” and “believing” in v35: “ He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes
in Me shall never thirst.” Is Jesus
asking for two different things here? Is he saying that it is one thing to
“come” to Christ and another to “believe” in Him? Certainly not! For then, how would we understand “coming” to
Christ? Is it “walking the isle”? Filling out a note card? Raising ones hand or
approaching the altar during an “altar call”? Certainly these would be later
ideas not present at all in the mind of John. It is rather easier to see the grammatical
parallel between “coming” and “believing”. This same thought of “coming” and
receiving freely through faith is also found in Isaiah 55:1-2 in which we read:
“Come,
everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and
eat! Come buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend
your money for that which is not bread, and your labor
for that which does not satisfy?”
The same parallelism is easily seen
in verses 37-40 in which the ones who “come” to Christ are not cast out, but
raised up on the last day. These are the same who “see” the Son and “believe”
in Him and are “raised up on the last day”. The ones “coming” are the ones
“believing”. Thus, we “come” to Christ
through faith.
Now, the Jews complain because Jesus
claimed to be of such significance. Their response in v41-43 shows that they
believed Jesus to be of no greater significance than any of them as they
perceived to know Jesus origins through Joseph and his mother Mary who were
familiar to them. For Jesus to be saying such things, to them, seemed out of
place and unbecoming. Jesus goes on to explain that their unbelief is not a
surprise since only those who are “given” to Him and “drawn” by the Father
CANNOT “come” to Christ. He again assures
them that He is the “bread of life” and that he is not bread like that which
their forefathers ate and died in the wilderness with Moses. Rather, he is the
“living bread”. “If anyone eats of this
bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
(v51). Recall that John has previously talked about the Word of God becoming
“flesh” and it is to this that John is again alluding to; Jesus became a man to
give himself as a man, as flesh, for the life of the world.
At this point, the crowd begins to
murmur and complain against Christ. “How can this man give us his flesh to
eat?” they said. Jesus was obviously not
speaking literally. Jesus certainly was not advocating cannibalism. He has just
finished speaking figuratively about Him being the “bread of life” and He is
pressing the figurative language further here.
There are several things that we need to note about the syntax of verses
53-54 here. Previously, Jesus told us that we need to “come” to Him and
“believe” in Him. These verbs are in the continuous present tense signifying
that it is something that we are always doing and not a one time or once in a
while act. The verbs “eat” and “drink”
are also in the present tense signifying their continual ongoing action. We note this and the parallel between verse 40 and 54 as well to give us insight into
what Jesus meant about “eating” and “drinking” the flesh and blood of the Son
of Man.
“…that everyone
who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal
life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
“Whoever
feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up on the last day.”
So what is John really trying to convey and what literary tools is he using to do this? It seems that John is simply trying to emphasize belief in Christ and the kind of belief. Believing in Christ, faith, is not a one time act or something that one does every now and then. It is something of a continuous lifestyle hence the use of the present tense verb signifying continuous ongoing action. John is using metaphorical synonyms in the “looking” , “eating” and “drinking” to signify living faith in Christ. We note, that the “looking” and “believing” have the same result as the “eating” and “drinking” which is the “raising up” of the believer on the last day – an obvious allusion to the resurrection at the last day. Augustine, likewise notes that “believing” is the same as “eating”. In his Tractates on the Gospel of John, he writes “Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats;” (from NewAdvent.org).
Elsewhere, Augustine says that this passage in John is clearly figurative and not to be interpreted literally. In his work, On Christian Doctrine, he says, “’Except ye eat othe flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink his blood, ye have no life in you’…it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” (Sec. 3, chap. 16).
In summary regarding John 6, we can conclude that our Lord was not teaching the doctrine of transubstantiation from this passage but only one message: eternal life comes from believing in Christ, the true bread from heaven. There is no hint that Jesus or John intended to teach a change in substance in the Eucharist at all. Rather, we must participate in Christ’s body and suffering through our union of faith in Him.
Next, it was asserted that passages from the institution of the Lord’s supper teach transubstantiation. These passages include Luke 22:19-20, Matt 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24 and I Cor. 11:16-26. Before we delve further into the Biblical passages for interpretation, it must be noted that respected Roman Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, admits that “the conversion of the substance is implicitly contained in the words of institution by Christ” (Fundamentals, pg. 381). This means, that the doctrine itself is not self-evident or clear in the Scripture.
The argument essentially
is that the word “is” (Greek, estin estin)) demonstrates that the
bread and wine has “become” the body and blood of Christ. The main problem with
this kind of argument is that when this exegesis is consistently applied to the
rest of Scripture, the Roman Catholic will not admit that something else has
“become” or “is” now, what it says it is. For instance, when Jesus uses the
personal form of the “to be” verb in saying “I am the door” or “I am the vine”,
why doesn’t
We must also consider that Jesus had not yet given his body or blood on the cross, so we must ask how the bread and wine could have become that sacrificed body without the sacrifice having yet taken place? The meaning of Jesus’ words could only have been understood figuratively by the disciples in the room. Surely, they did not believe that Christ’s body was now in two places at the same time. (One must also consider the Christilogical errors of the transubstantiation doctrine since human flesh (the whole person) can only be located at one place in time at a time; were Christ to be humanly located in many places at once, then does he cease to be truly human?).
I Cor 10:16 also makes it clear that when believers partake of the Lord’s supper, it is a “communion” or “participation” in the body and blood of Christ. The text does NOT say that it is the body and blood in a transubstantiated sense at all. It is a participation in those things. The Lord’s supper is to demonstrate the unity of the body of Christ – as Paul will deal with in 11:16-34. Also, recall the context in which Paul is making these statements: the participation in idolatrous feasts by the Corinthian Christians. His argument is that just as the sacred meal that the Lord instituted is a participation with the body and blood of Christ, so participation in the sacred meals of idols is a “communion” or “participation” with idols, therefore, the Corinthians should abstain from idolatrous pagan feasts.
I would like, in particular, to take some time to deal with 1 Corinthians 11 as is it often presented as the next strongest Scripture for the doctrine of transubstantiation next to John 6. It is asserted, especially from verses 23-25 and 27, that the only possible interpretation is that the bread and wine must have become the body and blood of Christ otherwise, how can we “discern” the body of Christ? I do not believe that Paul was intending to teach transubstantiation at all here, but only how the application of the Lord’s Supper should be administered at the local level.
Note first that there were divisions that were being
created (v18-19). Paul tells them that when the come together, despite what
they think they are doing, they are NOT partaking of the Lord's Supper because
of their divisions. Instead, they are taking the opportunity shut out some
(leaving them hungry) while indulging themselves (making themselves drunk).
Instead of being "one body" and "one Church" they were like
two peoples....perhaps it was a Jew vs. Gentile distinction going on as was
still a pretty common occurrence then, or a rich vs. poor. Paul takes the time
to explain to them what the Lord's supper is supposed
to signify to them. The bread was a representation of One body of Christ, which
all believers are a part of, that Christ gave for all of the members of His
Church (hence, there shouldn't be divisions). When we take the cup, the
Scriptures say that we are proclaiming the Lord's death in covenant pact with
God: "for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."
(v26)
Now he sums
up..."Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner..." what is the unworthy manner? In context, is it not
drinking without regards to proclaiming the Lord's death till he comes? Is it
not drinking in the presumptive manner that some of the Corinthians were
engaging in, treating the Lord's supper as any other
regular meal that they could have partaken of at their own homes (see v22)?
Because they were eating and drinking the Lord's Supper in such a way, not
recognizing the body of Christ, His Church as a whole among them - but rather
with divisions- God sent his judgments on them.
"For this reason," - which reason? eating
in an unworthy manner - "...many are weak and sick among you, and many
sleep" (v30). It was God's judgment
on their community, but this judgment was not final but intended as
"chastening" that they - because they are in fact part of the Church,
"may not be condemned with the rest of the world."
How does he conclude?
"Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, WAIT FOR ONE
ANOTHER...."(v33). In context, Paul’s argument is not,
“you are not discerning the body and blood BECAUSE you don’t believe in
transubstantiation…” or something like that. Rather, it is because of their practices in how they regarded each
other that the Lord’s Supper was being profaned among them. That is why Paul is exhorting the Corinthians
here.
Hence, while it was maintained that the Scriptures speak of
the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ, when we delve into
Scripture, such is not the case and we even have a well respected Roman
Catholic scholar admitting such and saying that there is “implicit” evidence at
best in the Scriptures. One must be
willing to admit that arguing that the word “is” makes something change into
something else substantially is quite a leap of logic.
2) Did
the early Christians speak of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of
Christ?
With what little space that I have left, I wish to answer
this question as an introduction to what I will have to finish in my next
presentation.
I have read many words from many early fathers including
the ones quotes in the opening statement in which they say many things like the
bread and wine “is the flesh and blood”, etc… what NONE of these quotes of the
fathers are clear on is HOW they are the flesh and blood of Christ. Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, has an entire work called “Not by bread alone”
that gives literally hundreds of quotes of the early fathers saying that the
bread and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ. But none of the fathers
explain the doctrine of transubstantiation as was dogmatically declared by the
Council of Trent.
Why is this? It is my assertion that
the reason is because the doctrine was not proposed until much later in
history, especially with Paschasius Radbertus (9th century).
In
summary, the Scriptures do NOT teach the doctrine of transubstantiation at all
as the doctrine presupposes Aristotelian metaphysics which were not even in the
mind of the original audience or authors. John 6 is simply speaking about
believing in Christ and the sufficiency of faith for eternal life and the
promise of being raised up on the last day.
None of the Gospel narratives regarding the institution of the Lord’s
Supper explicitly lay out or teach the doctrine of
transubstantiation at all. If the supper
that the disciples partook of was the sacrifice of the Mass, how could it be
since the sacrifice in which it was based upon had not yet taken place? Rather,
it was an figurative allusion to that upcoming death and sacrifice and we take
of it after the cross as a reminder of Christ ( “of
me” I Cor. 11:24-25), and by partaking in it, we “proclaim the Lord’s death
until He comes” (I Cor. 10:26).
Thank
you.