Luther on the Eucharist

Many Protestants reject the concept of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ with regard to the Eucharist, or as they refer to it more often "The Lord's Supper" or "Holy Communion" (we, Catholics, do use those terms too on occasion, the latter more than the former).  What IS the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence?

The Catholic belief/faith in the Real Presence is that upon consecration of the bread and wine, while maintaining the appearance of bread and wine the substance changes to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. There is no change in what we see or perceive through our senses, the accidents (in philosophical language) remain but the substance, that is what something REALLY is, changes so that what we receive through the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ.  The scholastic or philosophical term for the Catholic position is "Transubstantiation" (trans = change and substantiation = substance, or a "change in substance").  For most Protestants they focus on "The Lord's Supper" as a memorial only - there is no change in the substance nor is there any special presence of Jesus Christ "in, on or under" (we'll get to that in a bit) with the bread or wine.  For those it is pure symbolism.

Now I said "most Protestants" for a reason - as SOME do still cling to some sort of belief in the Real Presence to one degree or another.  For example, officially speaking, Anglicanism (which Episcopalianism is part of), they have a very "Catholic" understanding of the Real Presence.  Lutherans, on the other hand (of which I am a former member) while accepting the Real Presence "with" the Eucharist do not believe the substance actually changes.  The term for what Lutherans believe is "Consubstantiation" (con = with) that is, they believe Jesus Christ is "in, on and under" the hosts of bread and wine - the substance does not change, but Christ is "with" the bread and wine.  Since I was born and raised in the Lutheran Church, I have a particular interest in their teachings and beliefs - so what did Luther himself teach on this subject?

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? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”  [—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391; qtd on BFHU blog]

Note, while he insists upon the Real Presence, and even points to the unanimity of the Fathers of the Church, his language clings to Consubstantiation.

This next one, from Luther's Confession and the Lord's Supper, also shares a true belief in the Real Presence, but still a consubstantial understanding:

Christ has shown this to us not only by his own example and by his Word, but he has also pictured it to us in the form of the Sacrament of the Altar, namely, by means of the bread and the wine. We believe that the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and wine, even as it is. Here we see one thing and believe another, which describes faith. For when we hear the Word and receive the Lord's Supper we have merely a word and an act, yet by it we embrace life and every treasure, even God himself.  [Confession and the Lord's Supper, by Martin Luther]

Much of that piece is Luther railing against the pope and Catholicism in general regarding the practice of not giving the Cup to the faithful, only the bread/body of Christ.  That is another discussion though, so let us not be distracted by that discussion in discussing the subject of this article.  Getting back to the subject, notice the statement that "the true body and blood of Christ is under the bread and wine."  That is Consubstantiation.  Again, it is very close to the Catholic belief of Transubstantiation, and if the true faith were stated, he could have/should have said something like "We believe that the bread and the wine IS the true body and blood of Christ," and then there would be no doubt and an affirmation of the, to use Luther's word "unanimous" consent of the Early Church Fathers.

In short, Luther's belief, which is perpetuated in today's Lutheran teaching, is one which accepts the Real Presence of Jesus Christ with the Eucharist.  He brings you close, but not quite to what Jesus Christ Himself taught, and that is that "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood."

The scriptural TRUTH:

 

What Catholics Believe, The Eucharist Part I

The following are some statements, in bold italics, about the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. I don't pretend that these statements are exhaustive, but they are major points on the doctrine of the Eucharist.

The Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper.

"The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them to the end. Knowing that the hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father, in the course of a meal he washed their feet and gave them the commandment of love.¹⁶³ In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; "thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament.""^{164  (CCC 1337; 163 Cf. Jn 13:1-17; 34-35; 164 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740.)}

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to His disciples said, “Take and eat; this is My body.” Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

While they were eating, He took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many." (Mark 14:22-24)

Last Supper by Juan de Juanes, 16th cent.

When the hour came, He took his place at table with the apostles. He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”  Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”  Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." (Luke 22:14-20)

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was handed over, took bread, and, after He had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is My body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.”  In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. (I Cor. 11:23-26)

Maciejowski Bible, 13th Cent.

The Church has always believed and taken our Lord Jesus at His word when He said, "This is My Body...This is My Blood."  After all that He said in John's Gospel chapter six, we take Him at His word.  

"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.”

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will have life because of Me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (verses 48-58; NAB)

Jesus repeats and emphasizes the eating of His flesh.  He never explains it away and never explains it as a parable.  We don't take His words as symbolic, but as spiritual truth.

The Last Supper is believed to be a Passover meal commemorating the Exodus.  In the New Covenant, Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb.

Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what He had announced at Capernaum: giving His disciples His Body and His Blood:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . ." They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, He sat at table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.". . . . And He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My blood."¹⁶⁶  (CCC 1339;166 Lk 22:7-20; Cf. Mt 26:17-29; Mk 14:12-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26.)

By celebrating the Last Supper with His apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to His father by His death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.  (CCC 1340)

This author has personally heard some protestants claim that the Last Supper was not Passover.  However, because of the words of the Gospel writers, it was and is believed by the Church that this was indeed the Passover supper.  The Passover meal and the by extension the Exodus takes on a special significance through Jesus' words and actions.

 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.¹⁸⁴ In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.¹⁸⁵ "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."¹⁸⁶  [184 Cf. Ex 13:3. 185 Cf. Heb 7:25-27. 186 LG 3; cf. 1 Cor 5:7.] (CCC 1363-1364)

The Eucharist nourishes the Church.

What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,"²²⁹ preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.[229 PO 5.  CCC 1392]

The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are not simply that.

Give us this day our substantial bread. This common bread is not substantial bread, but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul. For this Bread goes not into the belly and is cast out into the draught Matthew 15:17, but is distributed into your whole system for the benefit of body and soul. But by this day, he means, each day, as also Paul said, While it is called today Hebrews 3:15 .  (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 23, On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion, 15)

A Catholic Tabernacle

Because the Body and Blood of Christ remain as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain, the Church worships the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass.

The Church believes Christ's words, "This is My Body...This is My Blood," therefore she worships Christ in His most precious form.  He is there and He is present.  St. Cyril said of the Eucharist:

Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you.  (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 22, On the Body and Blood of Christ, 6)

So, if "the Body and Blood have been vouchsafed" then the Church must treat the Eucharist with the reverence due to God.  The Body not consumed at Mass is reserved in a tabernacle.

The celebration of the Eucharist in the Sacrifice of the Mass is truly the origin and end of the worship given to the Eucharist outside the Mass. Furthermore the sacred species are reserved after Mass principally so that the faithful who cannot be present at Mass, above all the sick and those advanced in age, may be united by sacramental Communion to Christ and his Sacrifice which is offered in the Mass.”[219] In addition, this reservation also permits the practice of adoring this great Sacrament and offering it the worship due to God.  (Redemptionis Sacramentum: On Certain Matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist. From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament, Rome, 25 March 2004, para. 129.)

"The Most Holy Sacrament is to be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is noble, prominent, readily visible, and adorned in a dignified manner” and furthermore “suitable for prayer” by reason of the quietness of the location, the space available in front of the tabernacle, and also the supply of benches or seats and kneelers." (Redemptionis Sacramentum, para 130)

This is a serious matter and not one to be profaned.

******
My intent is to write a part II to include a discussion on Transubstantiation.

******


Addendum from Scott:
I promised to share a story I heard our local priest tell from the pulpit on the Feast of Corpus Christi, he proclaimed it was absolutely true.   Since CathMom5 began this article on the Eucharist, I felt it fitting to add this story to her article.

Here's the story:

On the evening of the last day of his October 1995 visit to the United States, John Paul II was scheduled to greet the seminarians at Saint Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore. It had been a very full day that began with a Mass at Oriole Park in Camden Yards, a parade through downtown streets, a visit to the Basilica of the Assumption, the first cathedral in the country, lunch at a local soup kitchen run by Catholic Charities; a prayer service at the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen in North Baltimore; and finally a quick stop at Saint Mary’s Seminary.
The schedule was tight so the plan was simply to greet the seminarians while they stood outside on the steps. But the Pope made his way through their ranks and into the building. His plan was to first make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament.
When his wishes were made known, security flew into action. They swept the building paying close attention to the chapel where the Pope would be praying. For this purpose highly trained dogs were used to detect any person who might be present.
The dogs are trained to locate survivors in collapsed buildings after earthquakes and other disasters. These highly intelligent and eager dogs quickly went through the halls, offices and classrooms and were then sent to the chapel. They went up and down the aisle, past the pews and finally into the side chapel where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.
Upon reaching the tabernacle, the dogs sniffed, whined, pointed, and refused to leave, their attention riveted on the tabernacle, until called by their handlers. They were convinced that they discovered someone there.
We Catholics know they were right — they found a real, living Person in the tabernacle!

Now, I've seen this story, verbatim, on several sites - all Catholic.  I do not personally doubt the veracity of this anecdotal situation, but for others reading along, I'd like some other, preferably non-Catholic, confirmation.  If you have any other information, please share in the comments of this blog.

Other sites with this story that I've found thus far:
http://www.bettnet.com/police_dogs_recognize_christ_in_the_eucharist/
http://eucharisticadoration.com/articles/344/1/Who-Can-Doubt-The-Real-Presence63/Page1.html
http://www.michaeljournal.org/cowley.htm
http://kloska.blogspot.com/2011/09/even-dogs-believe-in-true-presence.html

Change We Can Believe In

I posted this once before, but didn't go with the political spin on it - so I thought I'd post it again and let your mind go on with what it means - both spiritually and politically.  Of course, the saying is based on a political slogan of the 2008 Obama campaign - but think about it.  Comment if you wish....

Transubstantiation

What, exactly, is Transubstantiation?  If you break down the word it is not too difficult.  The first part, "trans" means "change" and the next part "substantiation" comes from the word "substance" and the "tion" part indicates it is an act or action.  Putting it all together, it means a "change of substance" or the process of changing a substance from one thing to another.  The change may not be in what you "see" - but in the "substance" which truly "is" what something "is."  

This is what happened when Jesus took bread, and blessing it He said, "This IS my body;" and with wine He declared, "This IS My blood."  Sure, it still looked like and tasted like bread and wine, but upon the declaration of God Almighty Himself, it became His body and blood!  Who are we to disagree or argue against the very Word of God?  He also didn't stop there!  He added, "Do THIS as often as you partake in THIS."  That command was given to the Apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church and they, in turn, pass on this authority to their successors and give faculties to local priests to "Do THIS" as well.  Any "church" which does not profess THIS is NOT the Church which Jesus Christ built.

Transubstantiation Question II

Alan, aka Rhology, and I have been going round and round on the topic of Transubstantiation and his allegation that the teaching is Monophysite.   I believe I've already made a good case, but let us try again and be very thorough about it...

Scott wrote: Which article are you referring to now? 

Alan responds:  The blogpost. THe only one I've written on this topic.

Fine, so let us take a look at your blogpost in detail:

Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine? CrimsonCatholic and Perry Robinson participated a few months ago in a fairly technical but somewhat interesting discussion at David Waltz's blog. CrimsonCatholic made a very interesting statement: The key feature of Chalcedonian theology is that Christ's nature is exactly the same as ours, so what happens to the human nature in Christ happens to everyone who is "in Christ Jesus" (to use St. Paul's term) by grace, including the sharing of the divine glory. Alan continues:  I'd like to ask a few questions, if we're going to take this consistently with the rest of our theology. So Christ's nature if exactly the same as mine. My nature is human. Part of being human (as opposed to being divine) is to be limited to a particular physical location at any one time, is it not? My body cannot be in more than one place at any one time. That's obvious. Now, Christ Himself, at the time of His Incarnation, took upon Himself a human nature and a physical body. At the time of His Resurrection, His body became glorified and immortal; He doesn't necessarily have blood anymore, but He retains flesh and physical tangibility, among other properties. He can perhaps walk through walls, or perhaps not;John 20 simply says, "when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'" Maybe He created a key and let Himself in; maybe He knocked and they let Him in; maybe He passed through the door via "teleportation"; the text does not tell us. Obviously He can perform miracles such as walking on water and perhaps passing through walls, disappearing right in front of two disciples at dinnertime on the road to Emmaus, etc, but we never see Christ in more than one place at any one time.

A key point missed here by Alan is the fact that though the Human Nature of Christ is exactly like ours, it is also inseparable from the Divine Nature.   Alan seems to forget that the Divine Nature of Christ affected His Human Nature too, especially where He walked on water (see John 6:16-21).  His Divine Nature clearly can and did affect His Human Nature!  Not only that, in Matthew's account St. Peter also gets out of the boat and walks on water - Jesus is affecting St. Peter's human nature!  The last I checked, in "nature" the surface tension of water cannot support the human body (See Matthew 14:22-33)

Interestingly enough, just previous to the walking on water incident in John 6, Jesus prefigures the Eucharist in the feeding of the 5000 from two fishes and 5 loaves of bread (see John 6:5-14).  Then Jesus goes up into the mountains and the Apostles head out across the sea in their boat.  While about half way across the sea, they encounter a storm and low and behold, Jesus is walking on the water!  He climbs into the boat and not only does the storm end, they are immediately at their destination!  Jesus is affecting physical elements all around Him - including His own body!  The rest of John 6 is the Eucharistic treatise wherein Jesus commands, multiple times, that we are to eat His body and drink His blood or we have no life in us!   The objective reader here can surely see that John 6 is all about the Eucharist from start to finish!  Of course, those who close their eyes to the truth and do not want to see this in a Catholic light will come up with all sorts of rationalizations as to why John 6 is not about the Eucharist at all - but a plain reading of the text betrays their arguments.

Back to Alan's point - he is positing that because the Eucharist is multi-locational that fact denies the Human Nature of Christ - but does it really?  I can see why he makes this argument, but then He also limits the Divine Nature of Christ the ability to multi-locate His body.

In later responses Alan asks "Was Jesus ever in multiple locations at one time as recorded by Scripture?"  To which I have provided the scenario of the Centurion who sought Jesus' help for his dying servant.   Jesus did not go with him, yet knew exactly who this servant was and healed him that very hour (see Luke 7:1-10).

Next Alan quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) - let us look at these passages:

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. 

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Now, I'm not real sure why Alan felt the need to post these - other than to show that Catholics DO believe in Transubstantiation - no one here is denying that!  But let us progress...

On any given Sunday, or really most any day of the week, Mass is performed at thousands of churches across the globe. On any given Sunday morning, to be sure, the Eucharistic host is transubstantiated in multiple locations, at the same time. How well does this match with the conception of Christ's body's substance? It is supposed to be of human substance, yet here it displays a trait better assigned to divinity, that of omnipresence. Christ's human body, it turns out, is NOT "exactly the same as ours", as I don't think CrimsonCatholic has ever been at two or more places at once. I know I haven't, much as I'd like to be; I could get a lot more accomplished!

Humor and sarcasm aside, Alan still does not see that the Divine Nature of Christ can and did affect His Human Nature, and even that of St. Peter!

And the situation seems to be even worse than that. Take a look at this from the Catholic Encyclopedia: On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and particles that remain on the or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion. Thus the red candle/light that one often sees perpetually lit on the altar of a Roman church - one or more transubstantiated hosts are still there. The real and substantial body of Jesus Christ is enclosed there. In many hundreds or thousands of churches across the world, simultaneously.

I'm not sure why Alan says this is "worse," as it's just the same thing he's already brought up.

So, taking the doctrine that CrimsonCatholic has expressed and applying it consistently across the board, we run into a serious snag in the doctrine of the Eucharist. It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite.

The real problem here is not the Catholic Faith - it is Alan's LACK OF FAITH.  We believe, through a great Mystery of Faith that Jesus is able and has accomplished that which He said and has enabled us to fulfill that which He has commanded of us - namely to eat His body and drink His blood.  We cannot by science or nature fully explain this miracle - for that's exactly what it is!  It's a miracle!  This miracle happens at every valid Mass throughout the world.  Catholics have faith that Jesus IS able and does do this, Alan lacks the faith necessary to accept this - may God have mercy on his soul and grant him this faith.

Now to deal with his last objections from the previous thread:

Scott wrote:  I mean the Human Nature of Jesus would not have the authority to transubstantiate bread or wine

Alan responded:  Now you're arguing the backwards position. I'm arguing that you invalidate the human for the sake of the divine, not the other way around.

Besides, what does authority have to do with anything?

I am aware of what Alan's position is - but what is apparent here is that he does not consider our Faith.  He is only considering his physical understanding of things and NOT the metaphysical authority of God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Yes, Alan's argument is Monophysite - but the Catholic Faith is not.  Again, may God grant him the faith necessary to accept His Truth.

Scott continues: based on a FALSE DEFINITION

Alan responds:  Assertion noted. Now all you need is an argument.

Well, earlier I had asked Alan to provide his definition of Monophysite, he responded quoting a Catholic source:

They all declared with one voice that Christ is mia physis, but ek duo physeon, that His Divine Nature is combined with a complete Human Nature in one hypostasis, and hence the two have become together the One Nature of that one hypostasis, howbeit without mixture or confusion or diminution. Ælurus insists that after union the properties of each nature remain unchanged; but they spoke of "the divine and human things", divina et humana, not natures; each nature remains in its natural state with its own characteristics (en idioteti te kata physin) yet not as a unity but as a part, a quality (poiotes physike), nor as a physis. All the qualities of the two natures are combined into one hypostasis synthetos and form the one nature of that one hypostasis. (Source)

To which I responded:

So Alan, how about continuing to the very next sentence in that source?

So far there is no heresy in intention, but only a wrong definition: that one hypostasis can have only one nature.

So the definition you are allegedly abiding by is a FALSE definition according to Catholic teaching! Just because YOU want to see heresy in Catholicism does not mean in reality it exists.
Heresy exists in what someone believes and/or professes to believe.  Heresy does NOT exist in what someone else perceives another to believe.  For example, if I were to agree with Alan's definition and say, "yes, Catholicism is Monophysite, but I'm remaining a Catholic," then I would be admitting to the heresy AND embracing it!  However, it is NOT the Catholic Faith that Alan posits!  He posits an incomplete definition of Monophysite and the applies it falsely to Catholics who do not consent to his flawed (and incomplete) definition.  Alan's usage is flawed because he denies the fact that Catholicism teaches through the Hypostatic Union that the Two Natures of Christ remain.  Regardless of Alan's rationalizations to attempt to limit OUR FAITH to only one nature (Monophysite).  In short, Alan has build up a rather elaborate straw man argument - and then knocks down the false argument in triumphalist fashion.

Transubstantiation Question

bossmanham Says:

Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:34:00 AM

Hi CathApol,

I know this post isn't on transubstantiation, but I saw your response to Rhoblogy's post on transubstantiation. While I'm not Catholic and don't hold to the doctrine, I'm also not really fundamentally against it. I don't see it in scripture, but I don't know that there's anything terrible about holding to it, since I think the Eucharist, whatever the true nature of it is, is a very intimate and spiritual moment with Christ.

That said, I am interested in the formulation. William Lane Craig, in one of his Defenders podcasts, talked about the issue and mentioned something interesting a Catholic told him about Transubstantiation and how it made sense in the Catholic's mind. Craig asked him how Christ's body had not been exhausted throughout the years. I can't remember the answer. Could you extrapolate on it for me? The answer, as I remember, had something to do with the nature of the substance consumed.

In Christ.

Well, let me begin with moving this post/question to it's own blog entry so as to not be confused with the original post where you asked the question.  Feel free to add more to the combox on this entry.

Secondly, I can respect that you do not hold to the doctrine - but don't outright reject it.  I grew up a Lutheran, so it wasn't a real huge leap for me to move to the Catholic understanding.  I had always understood a "Real Presence" of sorts in the Lutheran Communion, now I have a fuller understanding that it IS His body and IS His blood - not that His body and blood are "with" the bread and wine.  The fundamental principle and scriptural support for this lies in the fact that Jesus Himself declared not that the bread would have a Real Presence WITH it, but that the bread now IS His body.  St. Augustine said it well:  

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). 

And to bolster those statements from St. Augustine, let us also look to what St. Ignatius of Antioch said (and keep in mind, St. Ignatius was a disciple to St. John the Apostle, so Ignatius received this information first-hand from the Apostle who wrote John 6!).

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

So, you can see this is not some new innovation of Catholics after the time of the Protestant Reformation.  Catholics have maintained this belief in the Real Presence since the very words of Christ declared this to be so.

Now, how is the body of Christ not all "used up" by now?  I would point you back to John 6, as I did Alan (Rhology) in my original comment.  In the first part of John 6 we have the pre-figuring of just how Jesus can be in many places at one time!  Jesus took a few fishes and loaves of bread and miraculously fed over 5000 people!  How could so few fishes and loaves be passed around to over 5000 people?  It is a mystery of faith!  We believe not because we can fully understand and explain the miracles of God, no!  We believe because we have FAITH.  Jesus demonstrated that He is capable of such a miracle - so when He took bread and declared it to BE His body - then it IS His body!  How?  We can't say - but we accept Jesus at His Word here.  

Why do we believe Jesus is speaking literally here and not figuratively?  Because, going back to John 6, Jesus COMMANDS us - MULTIPLE TIMES that we MUST eat His body and drink His blood or we have NO LIFE in us!  This caused the Jews to grumble - and even many of his disciples, those who had been following Him and learning from Him, to "turn and walk with Him no more."  If this were just a figurative parable here, why would Jesus allow His DISCIPLES to walk away with a false understanding of what He meant?  But He did let them walk away, why?  Because they DID understand Him correctly but did not have the FAITH necessary to BELIEVE HIM.

I hope this helps you to understand this teaching better, and pray that God gives you the faith necessary to believe Him - without question - on this matter.  Just as Jesus turned to The Twelve and asked, "Will you also leave?"  St. Peter answered Him, "To whom shall we go?  You have the words of everlasting life!"

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
   
PS- This is also answered by Matthew Bellisario here.