The Catechism begins its teaching on this doctrine at
paragraph 1373. I left the
Eucharist part one at paragraph 1344.
Those sections after this talk about the Mass and contain teachings on
why we celebrate this sacrament.
For the purposes of this post, the focus will be on specifically
transubstantiation.
What does this long word mean anyway? Essentially it is the belief that Christ
is physically present in the bread and wine after the priest consecrates them
on the altar. So they are no
longer bread and wine, but are now the body and blood of Christ (hence also the
reason for the feast of Corpus Christi).
Christ’s presence is also affirmed in Scripture:
“Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there.” –
Matthew 18:20
“Whatever you did for the least of these brothers or sisters
of mine, you did for me.” – Matthew 25:40
Christ is also present at the celebration of any sacrament
of the Church, since he authored them, but “most especially in the Eucharistic
species,” (CCC 1373). His presence
in the Eucharist is what elevates it to being “the sacrament of sacraments.” Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Eucharist
is “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the
sacraments tend,” (CCC 1374). The
Council of Trent stated that in the Eucharist “the body and blood, together
with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole
Christ it truly, really, and substantially contained.” This presence is more “real” because it
is “a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly
and entirely present,” (CCC 1374).
Transubstantiation is part of the reason non-Catholics are
asked to not participate in the Eucharist. Most Protestant denominations believe in a symbolic view of
the Eucharist, that Christ’s body and blood are symbolized in the bread and
wine. Catholicism teaches that it
is actually the body and blood of Christ, not a symbol.
Here some may say, “Why wait until the 1500s to clarify
this? Why not earlier?” To answer, many theological issues had
no need to be fleshed out in such a way because the majority of people believed
it. When the dynamic changes, the
Church in response will solidify its position on a teaching. This is true not only for
transubstantiation, but for other doctrines and teachings like Christ’s dual
natures or Marian beliefs.
In fact, many early Church fathers promoted the belief in
transubstantiation. Thomas Aquinas
was mentioned above, and others like John Chrysostom and Ambrose also spoke
about this.
“It is not man that causes the things offered to become the
Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ,
pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things
offered.” – John Chyrsostom
“Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but
what the blessing has consecrated.
The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the
blessing nature itself has been changed… Could not Christ’s word, which can
make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they
were not before? It is no less a
feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.” –
Ambrose of Milan (CCC 1375)
The Council of Trent said it in this way: “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 win 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)
Another fellow Catholic blogger also points out that no one
up until the Protestant Reformation disputed transubstantiation and, as pointed
above, the early Fathers in fact promoted this belief.
Biblical evidence of this claim is also found not only at
the Last Supper, but also in John 6.
After Jesus feeds the multitude of people, they come back wanting
more. Jesus tells them that he is
the bread of life and that this bread is his flesh (vv. 35-51). The crowd is then perplexed: How can Jesus give them his flesh (v.
52)?
Jesus answers, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my
flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and
drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of
the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from
heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will
live forever.” (vv. 53-58)
After this, many of these disciples leave him because they
cannot swallow his teaching.
Typically, Jesus would explain more if it were symbolic, like he does
for parables. Here, he essentially
says, “Here it is. Take it or
leave it.” And it is difficult to
fathom; our minds cannot process it.
It is simply a matter of faith.
The food that looks like bread and tastes like bread is not bread, but
Christ’s body. The drink that looks like wine and tastes like wine is not wine,
but Christ’s blood.
No comments:
Post a Comment