The Holy Eucharist
The sacrement of The Holy Eucharist has been likened to a representation. As a result, it has been likened to idolotry. This will discuss it's Biblical and Early Christian origins, as well as Real Presence.
Biblical Evidence
Protestant Responses
Real Presence
Matthew 26:26
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is My body.
27 And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
Mark 14:22
22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is My body.
23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them. And they all drank of it.
24 And He said to them: This is My blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
25 Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God.
Luke 22:18
18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
In these readings we see that Jesus again spoke of the bread and wine becoming His Body and Blood. Again He instructed them to take part. Also in Luke we see that Jesus told them to do this in memory of Him. To commemorate. This can only be done, after the fact. This will be seen in later passages.
John 1:29 "The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world."
This is like the pascal lamb that is offered up at Passover. Much of the Christian practise of The Holy Eucharist is akin to the celebration of The Passover. This should come as no surprise since The Last supper was a Passover meal.
Acts 2:41
41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.
42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all.
44 And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common.
45 Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.
46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.
Acts 20:7 "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight."
This shows that they continued this practise, but also changed the Sabbath to Sunday. This shows both celebrating The Eucharist and celebrating on Sundays were both old traditions dating back to the first days and members of Christianity. Acts 20 shows that it was taught, and preached and practised by those who walked with Jesus during His ministry on earth, believing and teaching that this was something they were to do.
1 Corinthians 5:7 "Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed."
1 Corinthians 10
16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.
1 Corinthians 11
22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
27 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.
2 Thessalonians 2:14
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Again we see in these two passages from 1 Corinthians, that Holy Communion was celebrated by early Christians. In Thessalonians we can see indictated that they had traditions that were even then, meant to be retained and continued. Not just actions people did with no signifigance or worth. 1 Corinthians 11:29 even goes as far as to say that those who eat The Body of Christ and Drink His Blood unworthily are guilty of them both. This indictates the gravely sinful nature of receiving The Eucharist in such a state. If Jesus was not present, what sin would there be? If it were a mere peice of bread and some wine, then we would be paying respect to an object, and treating the disrespect of bread and wine as sinful. Thus, denying Transubstantiation and Real Presence amounts to only one thing, idolotry. Teaching us to treat a mere object as a deity is a sin. Thus believing the sin Paul described is the sin of treating and object that represents God with disrespect, would be teaching that Paul taught us to fall into idolotry. Since the Bible can not teach us to sin, and has already stated that idolotry is a sin, we can see evidence that the first Christians accepted that which Catholic and Orthodox churches still to this day accept. The bread and wine have truly become, as Jesus stated, His Body and His Blood. Since The Bible clearly indicates it is a sin to partake in The Eucharist unworthily, we can gather that the first Christians did believe, as we should, that the bread and wine have in fact become The Body and Blood of Christ.
John 6:31
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.
34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in Me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me.
39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent Me: that of all that he hath given Me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.
40 And this is the will of my Father that sent Me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
41 The Jews therefore murmured at Him, because He had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith He, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to Me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in Me, hath everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me.
59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
62 But Jesus, knowing in Himself, that His disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
63 If then you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who He was, that would betray Him.
66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
67 After this many of His disciples went back; and walked no more with Him.
68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
70 And we have believed and have known, that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
Verse 54 said that Jesus told others that He was (I am) The Living Bread. Jesus even went as far as to say "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." Not indicates a singular action, or just meant for those present. But for all. Verse 56 says "For my flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed." Jesus restated it. Clarified it, yet spoke the same message.
Verse 67 shows that people had no problems leaving Christ after preaching that message, showing that people were "scandalised" even then. Verse 68 shows not only that Jesus knew that people did not approve of His message, but even that He asked others if they to found it to be something they couldn't accept. That He was prepared for this, and did not "explain" or "re-word" it. Jesus didn't back down or comprimise as say that it was just a representation, so as not to scandalise them.
Through out these passages we see repeated that Jesus said He was The Bread of Life, that "the bread that I (Jesus) will give, is my flesh," and that early Christians practised this. Some of them were present during Jesus' ministry and during The Last supper, so they understood the context in which they were told to break the bread. A question that remains, is The Eucharist just bread as a representation, or is there Real Presence?
Since the inception of Protestantism, there has been opposition to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Such as those that can be found here.
One Protestant responce says, The Holy Eucharist is not a sacrifice of Christ and "the supper was instituted before Jesus' crucifixion." This is true, but refer to Matthew 26 and Mark 14, when Jesus said "will be shed." He has already indication the future tense. There has also been mentioned the idea of "re-sacrificing" a the passage Hebrews 10:10-14 in which Christ's sacrifice was "once and for all." Since we already believe as Christians, that Jesus died for all men of all time, the idea of a single action being able to transcend the boundries of time should not be new. It is through the The Holy Eucharist, the Paschal Mystery that we partake, that this sacrifice is once and for all, and that Christ is always with us as He promised. To further respond here is an excerpt from The Catholic Catechism;
1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all "thanksgiving."
1361 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him.
The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.
1363 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.182 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.
1364 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.183 "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."184
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."185 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."186
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."188
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. the Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. the lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
We see that The Last Supper was a celebration of The Passover. The Passover happened once, but is commemorated yearly. Jesus also instructed us "Do this in memory of Me." Note the tense of of "do" as a continuing act, and "in memory of" which indicates something that has transpired.
Also has been posed is "there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal" and "there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed." To the contrary we do, in John 6:54.
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me.
59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
Here we can see "is meat indeed" and "My Blood is drink indeed." Also is "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." There are not a lot of ways to interpret them. We can see in John 6 that Jesus was prepared for people not being able to handle this, but He did not say it was figurative. In fact, He gave the disciples a chance to leave if this "scandalised them." Jesus also said "The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life." His words were that His Flesh and Blood were true Meat and Drink (respectively).
Also from the example of the early Christians, continuing the practise and asking "is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" Clearly they took it literally. And they recieved the message first hand. Note also 1 Corinthians 11 "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." It is clear not only that they believed the bread truly became The Body of Christ, but that to partake in it while in a state of mortal sin did infact commit sacrilege.
Another responce is "there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements." This is true. They didn't worship the elements. However, Acts 20 makes it abundantly clear that early Christians did part take in The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the breaking of bread. 1 Corinthians 16 even poses the rhethorical question, with "Yes" as the obvious answer indicated. Lets not forget Matthew 28:20 " Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." And since Jesus Christ told us "Do This in memory of Me" we should.
"The Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law" has also been used in opposition to Real Presence. For starters, it's just "Catholic" not "Roman Catholic." The latter gives the fake idea that it is part of a larger "Catholic Church." The roots of the term actually stem from insults and to this day is still considered derogitory in certain parts of the world. It is just "Catholic." Second, in regards to Levitical Law, that stems from;
Leviticus 17:11 Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.
Didn't Jesus die for our sins? Contrary to being a violation of Levitical Law, this passage actually seems quite prophetic to The Holy Eucharist. Jesus said that it was His Body and Blood. He instructed us to part take, and He instructed us to continue with the practise. Just as in the days gone by, a lamb was sacrificed for the Passover, The Lamb of God became a sacrifice for us. Jesus is The New Covenant. Mark 14:23 "This is My Blood of the new testament." As Christians we should believe His word. Just as the Jews were commanded to observe The Passover forever, Jesus instructed the Apostles "Do this in memory of Me." We should also remember these, His words. "Doth this scandalize you?"
The Book of Hebrews frequently likens Christ's sacrifice to that of the Levitical order. Such as the one described in Leviticus 17:11. While we are concerning ourselves with Levitical law, we should also take into consideration Mitzvot 356 of The 613 Mitzvot. It says "The Kohanim (priest) must eat the sacrificial meat in the Temple" and is based on the passage Exodus 29:33. This is interesting, for some Protestant denominations profess "The priesthood of all believers." Wouldn't this doctrine create an equal requirement of Real Presence? Particularly since the priest are required to eat the sacrifice.
Also we should remember that this isn't just a "Catholic perspective." The doctrine of Transubstantiation is shared by The Eastern Orthodox Church. Though they use the Greek word Metousiosis, it is the same. They are not part of The Catholic Communion so this is not a uniquely Catholic idea. Thus the doctrine should not be attacked as a Catholic idea. There are also Protestant denominations that accept Transubstantiation/Metousiosis. There are other Protestant denominations that partake in weekly communion, though their perception of presence is different. So again, The Holy Eucharist is not just "a Catholic thing."
"It is a violation of the incarnation" is yet another responce to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In this is is mentioned that "for Jesus to be human He must be located in one place" and "A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent." This is interesting for in the same objecting paragraph we find "This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human." So perhaps if Jesus was just a man, this might be hard to accept. However since it is established He is both God and Man, it should be easier to accept.
A vocal opponent to Transubstantiation was Martin Luther. He believed that The Holy Eucharist and even The Last supper was a mere representation of Jesus Christ, and void of true presence. A response to Martin Luther's claim comes from The Catholic Encyclopedia;
Scripture neither says the bread "is" my body, nor "in" the bread is my body, in fact it says nothing about bread whatever. The demonstrative pronoun "this", does not refer to the bread at all, but to the body of Christ, present at the table. (Martin Luther claimed) When Jesus said "this is my body", He pointed to Himself, and said "this body shall be offered up, this blood shall be shed, for you". The words "take and eat" refer to the profferred bread -- the words "this is my body" to the body of Jesus. He (Luther) goes further, and maintains that "this is" really means "this signifies". Accordingly grace should be sought in Christ crucified, not in the sacrament. Among all the arguments advanced none proved more embarrassing than the deictic "this is".
As stated, the passages do not make reference to the bread at all, save before the blessing (known as Consecration). After this Jesus said "Take ye, and eat. This is My body. And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." After this, neither are referred to as bread and wine, but The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Sacrificed for our sins and truly present. Jesus had before this time said "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." These in and of themselves should be enough evidence of the meaning of Christ's words. However, clear evidence of the disciples celebrating The Mass with The Holy Eucharist has been presented. Their opinion of the bread and wine was clear that it had changed to The Body and Blood of Christ, to the point that they believed to partake in it while in a state of grave sin was a sacrilege. Opponents of Transubstantiation claim that it was a mere representation. The belief that partaking "unworthily" of The Eucharist was a sin, and the fact that they received the message first hand, in the original context and language makes it clear that Real Presence was preached from the very start. Thus not a mere representation.
Luther's doctrine on The Eucharist fails to be consistant. If as Luther claimed, Jesus was refering to the bread when He said "take and eat," how could He also be saying "This is My Body" and mean "signifies My Body." Which was Jesus pointing to when He said "Take ye. This is My body." Himself, or the bread? If Luthers claim that Jesus pointed to Himself was correct, then the idea of it "only signifying" His Body would be incorrect, since Jesus would literally be speaking of His Body. If Jesus was refering to "the bread" (in quotation for it was no longer bread) then He would be confirming Real Presence when Christ said "This is My Body." Also we must consider, what did Jesus mean when He took the wine and said "This is My blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many." Jesus was not bleeding at the time. He could not have been pointing to His veins, or a quantity of His Blood. Unless we are to accept Real Presence, and that the wine was truely changed to His Blood. This passage in which Jesus spoke of His Blood is with out an alternative interpretation. He neither bled, nor pointed to His Blood, besides that which was offered in the cup which Jesus shared.
To answer that, we must remember again the words of Christ. Jesus said "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." Even if you took the words "is" out, the same meaning would remain. Jesus would still be holding up the bread and the wine and refering to it as His Body and Blood. It is then established that The Eucharist was in fact Jesus. If this was just a representation, we could only assume that this was supposed to be an immitation of Christ. One that we would treat as Christ, even though it was not. This is an implication of idolotry. For if it is not Christ, but is to be treated as if it were, what else could it be but a false idol? Are we truly to believe that Jesus Christ has asked us to sin against The Commandments? To fashion objects with our human hands and refer to it as divinity, even though it is not?
Next we ask ourselves, how can it be The Body and Blood of Christ? It was brought up as bread and wine. It looks like bread and wine. How can this be? To answer this question we need to address a philosophical concept known and "accidents and substance."
To begin understand these concepts, we can use a hat as an analogy. Picture a black derby hat. It is not a hat because it is black. Neither because it is made of felt. Neither because it is round, or is hard, or has a narrow brim. It is a hat because it goes on the head, but any object can go on the head. There for "hat" is the "substance." Felt, black, round and hard are the "accidents" of the hat. The mere appearance of it.
Another analogy is this. What separates human from animals? The common answer to a religious person may be, the soul. However if you dissect a human or an animal, in neither one will you find a soul. If you boil either down to it's basic elements, you will not find anything that can build a soul. A soul is part of the underlying substance of a human. A "substance" that makes us a human and the body is simply the "accident." No matter how close in our accidents we are to an animal, the underlying susbtance, which is our soul, truly makes us human. Eat too much sugar then you may have more sugar in your body than the next person. Drink too little water and you will be more dehydrated than the next person. Both are still very human. Have the right amount of sugar and water the next day and the result is the same. It is not the content of your body, thus the accidents, that make you human, but the underlying substance.
In this manner, the sacrifice went up as bread and wine, but once consecrated, their substance were truly changed into The Body and Blood of Christ. This is called "Transubstantiation" in Latin terminology or by the Greek term "Metousiosis." The apperance or "accidents" of it remain unchanged, but its underlying substance is truly changed.
A logical perspective to the issue of The Eucharist still having the appearance of bread may take this form. Picture a bowl of apples. All of them real except for one which is a very deceptively realistic wax recreation of an apple. Place it in a room with three people. Tell the first person that it is a bowl of apples. Tell the second all are real except one which is wax, but don't tell them which. Tell the third which apple is fake and that all the others are real. All three people will look at that bowl in a different way, and leave the room with a different idea in their mind. One believing them all to be apples. The second knowing one was fake but not which, thus placing a doubt as to whether there were all real, all fake, or only some fake. The third knowing which apples were real, which one was fake. All of them, never seeing that bowl of fruit again and believing in their minds what they will. Only the third knowing the absolute truth which was the authenticity of each apple. That stems from the reality that one apple was fake. The first and second persons could believe them all, or any one of the apples handed to them to be real indefinitely. That wouldn't change that fact that there was a wax replica of an apple in the bowl. Perception doesn't change the fact, that one apple was made of wax.
Apply this to The Eucharist. Take two people and place The Host on a plate before them. One person is a Catholic (and believes in Transubstantiation). The other person an atheist, oblivious to the idea of Transubstantiation. The Catholic would see The Host for what it is. The true presence of Christ. The atheist would see its colour, feel its texture, and observe it and think it to be bread. The two opinions and observations are different, what one might call a relative truth. This does not change that there still has to be one true nature of The Host, an absolute truth. We can look to a few passages, such as these;
John 14:6 "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life."
John 18:37 "Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice."
We, as Christians should put faith in the words of Christ, for as stated, He is The Truth. In regards to this matter, Jesus said that The Last Supper was His Body and Blood, and that we should do this in memory of Him. Jesus said that His Flesh was True Meat and His Blood was True Drink. Note again, the word "true." Jesus also said "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you."
To the opposition of Transubstantiation, a question is posed. What metaphorical explaining is there for Christ's words? "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." Is there another interpretation? How do Christians who do not partake in the Holy Eucharist, Christ truly present, eat of The Flesh of The Son of Man and drink of His Blood?
Often people try hard to understand this concept, but it has been taught for a long time that the consecration is a divine mystery. One beyond the complete comprehension of a mere human. Much like the concept of The Holy Trinity. We as humans, can not fully comprehend it for we are only human. With many limitations and short comings. We can accept it on faith however. Much the same way we accept many concepts of the physical world, even though we don't fully understand. It is also important to remember that everything exists, and exists as it does, because God said so. He has declared it such. Just as Jesus said "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood."
Now the idea of a piece of bread being changed into the True Body of Christ might be hard to understand. It is beyond our human comprehension, and this has caused some to limit their belief. For their understanding is limited. It however has not stopped acceptance of other such Biblical concepts;
- Being Born Again. This was mentioned by Jesus and seemed to be equally hard to grasp. However, this concept is widely accepted amung the Christian community. It has even been the source of the name of a religious movement, so called "The Born Agains." Its source is;
John 3:3 "Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?
5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
This is, again, is so widely accepted that it has become the name of a religious movement. It, like in the mention of Jesus' Body and Blood, was a difficult concept for others to accept.
- The Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is Three Persons in One. One in Being. This is also commonly accepted through the Christian community.
- The Feeding of 5000. Jesus took five loaves of bread and two fish and fed 5000 people with them. This also produced surplus food. Why then is Transubstantiation so hard to accept? Especially since John since which introduced us to the teaching of The Holy Eucharist, started off with the miracle of the loaves.
- The Incarnation. Jesus, becoming a Man. Being both God and Man at the same time. How was this possible? A miracle perhaps? A work of God? The Christian community widely accepts this as theological truth.
Many visions miracles have surround The Holy Eucharist. such as those who have had "transforming" personal experiences. Or the events of 13th century that led to the celebration of Corpus Christi.
If then, The Holy Eucharist is in fact the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, this is not idolotry. There is true presence. Real Presence. True "Communion" with God. By definition, this could not be idolotry.
Here is other reading material to read and consider;
- The Sacrament of The Eucharist
- The EWTN website about Communion
- Accident Philosophy
- Is Jesus Present in the Eucharist - An article by David MacDonald about The Holy Eucharist and Transubstantiation. An excellent resource to those who might not fully understand it.
- Eucharist - An article on the Catholic Encyclopedia website.
- Did the disciples leave Jesus in John 6 because they were confused? - An article by David MacDonald about the disciples who left Christ.
Contact me at thedialecticmethod@hotmail.com
Back to Main