Critical Mass

I just stumbled upon your blog - great postings by the way.

Yes, several questions. I am Catholic but frankly have a very hard time with several points that I believe are central to the Mass. The first is the concept of the True Presence in the Eucharist. The second is the concept of Transubstantiation (the need for a Real Sacrifice at every Mass if Christ 'died once for all'). The third is the issue of scriptural basis for the above. In fairness I am reasonably well-read and I am guessing I may have heard the answers you may have to all the above but I am hoping that your answers or the way you present it may shed some new light. For the record I am sincere in this request and not looking for any kind of debate. Just an understanding of how someone well-grounded in Catholic doctrine may respond. Thank you.

Debendevan - First of all, thank you for visiting (and subscribing - you're the first "follower"). Please check in once a week or so; I can't promise to post more frequently than that, since the posts take a bit of research and preparation, and I have so much else on my plate right now.

I would be happy to try and provide some reason to supplement the faith of the Church! All three of your points are deeply linked to one another.

(If my answers are the kind you were looking for, please let me know, and I'll try to approach from a different angle.)

As for the "True Presence" (or "Real Presence") of Christ in the Eucharist, the Church looks first of all to the words of the Lord himself, the testimony of St. Paul, and other passages of Scripture.

In John 6, Jesus describes himself as the fulfillment of the manna from the Exodus: he is the true bread from Heaven. When he speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (surely an idea repugnant to the Jews), he means it literally: St. John records, in Greek, the word trogo which means "to gnaw or chew", a word not used in a figurative or allegorical manner. When Christ says "body", St. John uses the Greek word sarx which means "flesh"; although the word is used in some cases to refer to the human condition, in those cases it refers to "flesh" as weakness, as the sin-prone state of our flesh. That cannot be the case with Christ, whose flesh is without sin. Christ uses this more literal word, trogo, when clarifying his meaning; he does not use a figurative word, but a literal one. When Christ says "the spirit ... gives life, the flesh is of no avail" (John 6:63), he does not say HIS flesh is of no avail, but "the flesh" (referring to the human condition). It is the same situation found in Matthew 16:17, where Jesus tells Peter that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven".

So this is the first reason why Catholics believe the Eucharist contains (in some way) the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

The Church also interprets literally (and miraculously, to be sure) the words of the Lord over the bread and wine at the Last Supper: Jesus spoke plainly, identifying the bread he held with his body, and the wine in the cup he held with his blood, the blood of the covenant.

When Paul writes to Corinth concerning the Eucharist, he says "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16) This language of "participation" is significant. The Greek word is koinonia, from which we get "communion", and can be translated as "communion", "participation", and "fellowship". Yes, Paul calls it "bread" (but then, so does Eucharistic Prayer I, the Roman Canon!), but he says that the bread and wine are participation in Christ's body and blood. He then contrasts eating the Eucharist with eating food offered to idols and demons, and gives a general rule: the one who partakes of food offered at an altar is a partner of that altar. (1 Cor. 10:17-21)

Then Paul explains that eating the Eucharist unworthily is a sin against Christ's body and blood, and that it brings judgment upon the one who does it. (1 Cor. 11:27-30) The RSV translation of verse 27 says that it is "profaning the body and blood of the Lord", which means that the body and blood of the Lord is being treated with irreverence and being abused (literally, being placed outside the temple... and our bodies are SUPPOSED to be temples of the Holy Spirit). This language is not the language of symbolism: the literal effects were being felt by some Corinthians who were sick or dying because of their conduct with the Eucharist.

That is the second reason the Church believes in the Real Presence, that the Eucharist is actually Christ's body and blood.

The extra-biblical writings of the early Church attest to this belief. Certainly, it took time to understand just what that belief entailed, but the Church grew in faith and understanding, she did not invent it.

This sort of covers transubstantiation, but not the second half of your second question, regarding how the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, the same sacrifice of Christ. I'll cover that in another response.

For more on transubstantiation and the Church's belief in the abiding Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I invite you to look at the presentation I gave this Advent on Eucharistic Adoration. The pamphlet covers in a bit of detail the history of the belief of the Church in the actual changing of the bread and wine into the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. (This isn't something Trent made up, in other words.)

(For more on this matter, see this link. It goes over Scripture and Church Father quotes concerning the Eucharist. You might also want to see what Catholic Answers has to say on the Eucharist and the Real Presence.)