 |
| Pope Benedict XVI at mass. |
I say this ‘tongue and cheek’ because the Roman Catholic
doctrine of Transubstantiation is actually difficult to follow without a fairly
broad understanding of theology and history.
It is my hope that this article will add clarity for those wanting to
understand how the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist ( often called Communion by Christians of all
denominations) differs from the Protestant conception. Just as a point of reference, I make no
claims of expertise on Roman Catholic doctrine, having never been Catholic
myself. On the other hand, as an
evangelical Christian (and ordained minister) I do recognize the historic debt
the church owes to Catholicism for its propagation and perpetuation of the
gospel in the world for nearly two millennia.
Because of this, I am committed to a fair-minded and even handed
treatment of all things Roman Catholic even if my own faith commitment and
understandings differ considerably.
At least part of the reason why the church in general has
had different understandings of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist (a Greek word
for thanksgiving) is that the words of Jesus on the matter seem to lend themselves
easily to a variety of interpretations.
Consider the words of Christ in John 6: “ So
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and
drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is
true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh
and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As
the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds
on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven,
not like the bread the
fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” In context Jesus was speaking of himself as
the true bread of heaven as opposed to the manna that was given Israel as a
temporary measure during their wanderings in the wilderness. But in both cases, the faithful must eat
something to survive. Another passage of
greater importance is Jesus’ words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper in
Luke 22:14-20: “ And when the hour
came, he reclined 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 will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
And he took a cup, and when he had given
thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among
yourselves. For I tell you that from
now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God
comes.” 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 they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my
blood.” Once again, where this leads is
where you place your emphasis. Do we
take “this is my body” and “do this in remembrance of me” literally or
figuratively or both? I’ll come back to
these passages in my conclusion but I hope you can see where there might be
room for the minds of godly people to entertain a variety of interpretations on
what Jesus meant in His teachings.
In its barest essence transubstantiation refers to a change
in the communion elements of bread and wine that occurs when an officially
ordained ministrant of the Roman Catholic Church prays the prayer of
consecration during the Eucharistic celebration. While the elements remain in taste, touch,
and appearance as bread and wine, they become spiritually transformed and their
actual substance becomes the flesh and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as presented by the late Pope John
Paul II, this is an un-bloody sacrifice in the present where the once-for-all
death of Christ for our sins, is re-presented
to the church body. As they eat of these
elements grace is received, the Lord is worshipped, and sanctifying faith is
infused. You can see that
Transubstantiation relies heavily on literal understanding of Jesus’ words in
John 6 and Luke 22.
Transubstantiation seems
to be at least a rudimentary idea
that is found in the church of antiquity, but it was not until the Fourth
Lateran Council (held in Rome) in 1215 that it became the fully articulated
doctrine it is today. Transubstantiation
was later affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1551 and has remained the
official position of the Roman Catholic church ever since. But there are other points of view on
communion that sprang forth during the Protestant Reformation.
Within the fold of Protestantism there are essentially two
views of the Eucharist, one similar and the other completely dissimilar to the
doctrine of Transubstantiation. The
Lutheran view, often called Consubstantiation, but more properly known as
Sacramental Union, holds that the consecrated bread and wine are not at all
changed in their substance, but the actual body and blood of the Lord are
spiritually united to them. This is
closely related to other Christological doctrines such as His dual nature and
His Ascension. When the Lord was
incarnated, He had a fully formed human nature (a union of body and soul) that
was knit to His divine nature. They were
two natures joined in perfect union.
Even so, the divine presence of the Lord Jesus, now dwelling in heaven,
is no longer limited by specific locality, but is able to be spiritually
present anywhere, everywhere, at any time.
In the Eucharistic celebration then, when the minister prays the words
of consecration over the bread and wine, the spiritual presence of Christ joins
the elements that the participants will be eating. In other words, like Jesus Himself, the
consecrated elements have a dual nature.
The other view, held
by Baptists and many other evangelical groups, is called Memorialism. This view emphasizes Jesus’ words at the
institution of the Lord’s supper in Luke 22:19 “do this in remembrance of
me”. In this conception, the bread and
wine go through no change but rather are symbols used to bring to remembrance
the salvation event of the cross.
Critical to this view is the presentation of Holy Scripture alongside
the Lord’s Supper which brings meaning to the event and is used by the Holy
Spirit to strengthen the faith of the participating believer.
In evaluating these positions I want to come back to the
scriptures that I presented above. In
John 6 Jesus references two breads that came from heaven: the manna and his
incarnate life as the son of God. The
manna from God was eaten by Israel in the wilderness, but all who ate it still
died. It was literal food. Jesus claims that those who eat of his flesh
and blood will not die but have eternal life.
Transubstantiation would certainly fulfill this requirement of eating
and drinking the body and blood of Christ, but what makes this questionable is
whether this is what Jesus meant by these words. When He spoke them He had not yet instituted
the Lord’s Supper, that was 1-2 years in the future. Secondly, this passage is part of several
discourses where Jesus likened Himself to something familiar with the phrase “I
am the…......(bread of life, good shepherd, the door, the way). It seems obvious in the larger picture that
Jesus is speaking figuratively not literally since we know Jesus wasn’t a
shepherd but a carpenter and a rabbi; and he was certainly not a door or a
roadway, but a man. It seems that the
type of “partaking” Jesus commands is to believe in Him as the Messiah whom God
has sent. Just so, the eating Jesus is
suggesting is the act of partaking of His life by trusting Him as Savior, for
the giving of His body and blood was for that very purpose. In the Luke 22 passage Jesus is actually
reshaping a symbolic “Old Covenant”
meal. The many elements of the Passover
were symbols of God’s provision and deliverance in the Exodus that also pointed
towards the coming Deliverer. The
elements of bread and wine were the symbols Christ chose because they represent
the pouring out of his life for our salvation.
I would also point out that Jesus was physically with them when He said
the bread and wine were his flesh and blood and so the more natural
understanding of this would be figurative rather than literal.
Does this mean that the Memorialist view is the most
Biblical and therefore the right one? In
one sense yes, because the bread and wine symbolize and call our attention back
to the great salvation we have received because of the cross. We eat often because food only nourishes us
temporarily. While I believe a person
who has trusted Christ and has been baptized remains in a state of grace, our
daily lives, so full of our own sin and touched by the sins of other, regularly
puts us in a state of discouragement and forgetfulness of our salvation. The Eucharistic meal reminds, refreshes, and
returns our hearts to the reality that Jesus loves us and gave Himself for
us. But on the other hand, I question
whether the Memorialist view completely articulates the fullness of the
Eucharist. When Christ instituted it He
was with His disciples and it is He who said “wherever two or more are gathered
there I am in their midst (Mt. 18:10)” and “surely I am with you even to the
end of the age (Mt. 28:20).” While these
are general promises of his spiritual presence with his Church, would they be
any less applicable in the case of the Lord’s Supper? And so, while I’m uncertain the Bible
articulates a full on Spiritual Union (as did Martin Luther) with the
consecrated elements, I do believe the Spirit of the Lord is especially present
when His people partake of communion in remembrance of Him.
Posts
