Today we’re going to be continuing our short series on the Eucharist. Our first article was jammed with information but still did not cover every topic or due the topic itself, justice. Here we will explore deeper into exactly what Christ said, St. Paul, and what the Early Church taught as a whole for the topic at hand. The key to understanding the Eucharist and whether or not it is biological —is the topic of Transubstantiation. TLDR the last article, we believe in a mystical union, much like the Baptism sacrament, we believe that when you are baptized your body does not change or regenerate but your soul eternally does. Much like this, we believe that the Eucharist, when taken does contain a mystical union with Christ insofar as when taken the earthly bread gives heavenly benefit. It provides us with purity from bloodguilt, it provides us with the True Manna of heaven, that is Christ.
Our belief system here is based on paleo-theology, that is of the Early Church Fathers teachings and renderings. Our entire belief system is based around what they taught coming from the Apostles. Thus, when an entity like the Protestant or the Roman Catholic church attempts to take hostage the Early Church, we must render them straight.
This article will not try to be exhaustive but to start let us explain the Roman Catholic view held by their creeds (as we know…patrons may differ). The Roman Catholic Church holds to the view of the Lord’s Supper called transubstantiation. It is the view that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, yet still retain the appearance of bread and wine.
“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 (CCC 1376).'”
Because of this view, the Catholic Church also says that the Mass (the ceremony of the Lord’s Supper) is a sacrifice (CCC 1055, 1365), the same sacrifice of Christ (CCC1367), that is propitiatory (CCC 1367), and capable of making reparation of sins (CCC 1414). This is because of their position that the bread and the wine become the sacrificed body and blood of Christ.
So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
Matthew 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
There are two possibilities
Jesus changed the bread and wine actually into his own flesh and blood.
Jesus was using metaphor to describe his death as the means of life for us.
The second possibility gains strength as Jesus used his flesh as a metaphor for life giving sustenance previously.
John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
That Jesus was not talking about physical eating was further strengthened by his contrast with the bread Moses provided.
That this illustration was not easily understood is seen by the reaction of Peter;
John 6:67-68 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Earlier Jesus emphasized the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood;
John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Here it would seem to bolster the argument for a literal eating and drinking of the body of Christ. However, the statement that if they did not eat and drink they would have “no life” in them shows a different kind of life than what most understood, eternal life —the entire fortitude of the Bible and the Arc of Christ’s missions.
John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
The literal view loses some support as Jesus emphasizes that it is the spirit that gives life.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
The best support for the metaphor view comes from the practice of communion in Corinth.
1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
Apparently some were getting drunk at communion which would indicate it was not physical blood.
1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
However the best evidence would not be Biblical but forensic. If a sample of blood and wine were examined after transubstantiation, it could easily be proven to be real flesh and blood or not. However, the Catholics use a term called “accidents” which means that the the qualities and nature are different. Aquinas attempts to show that a substance and nature by God alone can change.
Secondary, we have the Catholic teaching that this is a sacrifice but was Christ not the “finishing sacrifice?” are we to still sacrifice or take part in sacrifices? This idea comes from the Old Testament. We talked briefly on it in the first article where state that Christ is fulfilling the Old Testament rituals which involve showbread and the blood spattering.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says at Sect. 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."
However, biblically speaking, this is unnecessary, nor does it make sense:
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:12-14)
The sacrifice of Christ cannot be repeated, whether blood or otherwise. The sacrifice of the Cross, the Scripture says here, was one sacrifice made for sins forever. It does not need to be repeated. Nor do mere men have the power to present Christ to the Father, allegedly in the same way He presented Himself.
Let us move onto what the Early Church Fathers taught about Transubstantiation. We have in an article provided here: Click here to go to Ascension | This article attempts to use quotes from the Early Church that provide proof that it was taught (unanimously apparently) by the Early Church that the Real Presence meant that the bread and wine became literally the body and blood of Christ (biologically). We’ve shown in the earlier article why some of these quotes are erroneous and taken away from their context without any consideration of the authors writing attempts, styles, and preferences.
Instead, I’m going to show the Early Church father’s who directly speak on the topic and attempt to argue that they are speaking, as we believe, that the Eucharist is a mystical, spiritual mystery that does not require the belief that the bread/wine become biological material, rather something is happening in the unseen realm for our souls and our spiritual well-being. Our attempt is to take Early Church Fathers those who lived within 200 years or so of the Apostles.
Beginning with,
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6)
Clement goes onto describe and connect the blood with the Old Testament concept of milk and it being a nutrient to mankind. Next,
The words, "His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk," again I think secretly reveal the (c) mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. "His eyes are cheerful from wine," seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself (d) the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, "And his teeth are white as milk." This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, "Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me." (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)
Again, showcasing the relation between milk and sustainability. This text also confirms that Christ no longer requires or wants sacrifice. Therefore, the Roman idea of continual sacrifice is unwarranted and NOTE: “mysteries of the new Covenant…”
Next,
To further compound our Mystical Union using Ambrose; “In that sacrament [of the Eucharist] is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type: ‘Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink’ (1 Cor 10:3, 4). ~St. Ambrose: On the Mysteries, 9, 58.
In his letter to Gratian, Ambrose discourses on the issue of the very text in question where Christ says to eat his flesh and blood. Ambrose’ quote on many Roman Catholic sites will end mysteriously early. If you read on Ambrose goes on to explain that Christ is NOT speaking from a man’s perspective (ie., Son of Man) but rather unified with the Father and is speaking from the Spiritual perspective. Thus, reaffirming that Ambrose saw the Sacrament as SPIRITUAL.
Let us continue onward with Tertullian,
Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii.)
For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)
These quotes are often argued by Roman Catholics to need fuller context as they are words in a more sarcastic nature deriving from an argument with Marcion. Upon reading this exchange you’ll come to understand that Tertullian isn’t arguing for a literal body or literal blood when consuming the Sacrament but rather he defending the true nature of Christ as fully man and fully God (ie., simply responding to Marcion heresy). This in no way is attempting to show the Eucharist as biological blood or flesh as we’ve seen elsewhere. He even states… “how can there be a symbol if the man wasn’t made of flesh itself?”
Lastly,
And then (after new converts have been baptized) the deacons immediately bring the oblation to the bishop; and he eucharists the bread into the antitype of the Body of Christ; and the cup of mixed wine, for an antitype of the Blood, which was shed for all who believe in Him; and milk and honey mixed together for the fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, which spoke of a land flowing with milk and honey, that is, the very flesh of Christ which He gave and by which they who believe are nourished like little children .(St. Hippolytus,The Apostolic Tradition (ca. AD 215), 21.)
Concluding
This idea that the Early Church Father’s unanimously agreed with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches or has taught since around 500AD is erroneous at best. Most Early Church scholars will attest that these early writers taught in high symbolism as it was the tradition of the time. Literalism was not a way of teaching during this period, nor the ones prior. Rather, we know that Literalism is near novel and modern conceptualization and way of rendering teachings.
However, these mysteries which every Christian will encounter, must be rendered to the Scriptures as such. We cannot derive our answers of the infallible from the fallible and we must permit ourselves to living in mystery where Scripture calls us to live in such a way. That is to say, some things we will not fully grasp until the time of our Lord Jesus’ return.