You are right that apart from grace, no one can make it into heaven. We do not believe that we can ‘add to our salvation’ by natural acts of goodness. However, we believe as the Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is able to work through us, enabling supernatural good works (supernatural because these works are the result of agape love) and that these works can be meritorious. This does not mean that we earn our way into heaven. It means that works of good and evil always matter.

I keenly understand how you feel. It’s the heavy heart of someone who takes sin and hell/ good and heaven, very seriously. I have nothing in common with anyone who doesn’t feel this way and everything in common with anyone who does. Do I struggle with these thoughts? Yes. But not any more now that I’m Catholic; in fact – less. As a Reformed Christian, I knew that I would not be discussing theology with God on judgment day. I had opinions about forgiveness of sins – ‘once saved always saved’, I denied the mortal/venial sin distinction, and I thought that a single prayer at conversion was sufficient to cover all sins past and future; but in the end, these were simply opinions and they didn’t matter. What if I was wrong? And the reality of the matter is that the burden of many of my sins was never lifted off of my shoulders until my first confession.

That is all to say that I understand where you are coming from, and I understand what the Catholic sacramental system seems like from the outside. But you will appreciate the humanity of the sacraments; I mean, the psychological effect they have, to say nothing of the actual grace conferred. The unfortunate cycle of dealing with concupiscence, even after initial justification, and the need to go to our mother, the Church, to be healed, is a tangible expression of the Christian life. If it had been up to me, baptism would have removed concupiscence and we could live a life free of sin after baptism – no need for the sacraments. But God does things differently; and there is a great pedagogy to the liturgy of the sacramental life in Christ. We stumble, and Christ lifts us back up; and then we repeat, ever growing in the faith, becoming saints.

I do feel that the Reformed shouldn’t be too hard and fast on the distinction between Christ’s body and His divine nature by saying that since His body is now in heaven He cannot also be in the bread in wine. Luther was right to chastise Zwingli for this kind of distinction. If we speak like this we could say that because God cannot suffer, Jesus must have only suffered in His manhood, but what does this say about the passion of our Lord? This of course leads to a new question, but I haven’t the strength right now to study it. I do like it that Luther said that God’s righthand is, in fact, everywhere. I would like to know how Luther worked out his view of the Lord’s Supper, and if Zwingli is the man who gave the Reformed its understanding of Holy Communion.

I’m not sure if John 6 is a good proof that people left Jesus because He taught the Catholic view. Couldn’t a Reformed view be as much as a turn-off? I mean, we do read the words,”take eat, this is my body that was broken for you…” before we take communion. In honesty, I’m lost. I’m reading The Last Superstition and slowly understanding what Ockham and Scotus have done.

Today, per the recommendation of someone else from this site, I picked up JND Kelly’s ‘Early Christian Doctrine’ and I was bothered that the Jews had to live in a Hellenized place where their faith was meeting strange gods and rationalism, but then it dawned on me that the world at the time was the perfect place for Christianity to begin. If the gospel was meant to be spread to the gentiles, what better location could there be? Aristotle had not invented the world, he was just explaining it.

As for the last question, yes, you did understand me. I may be able to refrain from a lot of actions but there is no escaping sinful thoughts, that repeat no matter what I do. Wasn’t Jesus trying to tell us that we are exactly that rotten and that we can add nothing to our salvation? If not only a murder but a person who is angry with his brother is subject to hell fire, who can make it? Catholicism looks like it has as many laws as Judism did. I feel that it isn’t enough to keep my eye on Christ but that I must now attend to venial sins and mortal sins; one slip and I’m done for. Personally, do you feel safe? And what about those that you love, do you worry that they might commit a mortal sin and die before they have had a chance to repent. I realize, I’m probably getting some good chuckles, but don’t these things keep you up at night?

I really am appreciative;)

There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us.

You said:

I’m really trying to follow, but I’m lost on how the bread and wine as elements don’t just become part of the person receiving it as the drop of water example showed.

The sacrament is consumed by the participant, whereby we receive the True Body and Blood of Christ. John Calvin also affirmed that we truly receive the Body & Blood of Christ. The principle difference in our doctrine is not whether we truly receive, but whether the bread and wine truly become, the Body & Blood. Calvin wants to eat his cake without having it. Just a quick word on the sacrament; it is and always will be a mystery. The Catholic Church does not go into great detail on how Christ is consumed, how it is possible, etc. Plenty of orthodox theologians have done so, but as far as dogmatics are concerned, the Catholic Church, as in other cases, simply sets boundaries on what the faithful are permitted to believe. You might find this lengthy exploration of the subject to be helpful. It is a great read.

You also said:

I understand that the Priest is supposed to be offering up a “unbloody” sacrifice. Is this crucifying Christ over and over?

We believe that Christ died once for the salvation of men. The ‘unbloody’ sacrifice, so called from the earliest days of the Church, does not involve a re-sacrifice of Christ. Rather it is a recapitulation of that one time sacrifice. As the New Testament describes, particularly Hebrews and Revelation, Christ as High Priest of humanity stands eternally before the throne of God, offering that perfect sacrifice. During the mass, the priest, who acts in the person of Christ, i.e. representing Christ, offers the sacrifice of the mass – the one same sacrifice. The mass is where heaven & earth meet – this mystery is thereby outside the bounds of ordinary time. We are granted supernatural access to a singular historic event, and to its fruit: notably, forgiveness of sin.

You also said:

Please tell me, how the liturgy of Mass came to be. What symbols and elements are used beside the bread and wine and why are more things included that we aren’t given in the gospel account of the Last Supper?

This blog post, containing a short podcast, gives a brief introduction to the earliest Christian liturgy. I think it would be valuable to you in getting an idea of how the Catholic mass came to be. It will also help explain some of the symbolism that isn’t explicitly in the New Testament text but that we are historically certain was actually part of the ritual. These ancient traditions, older than the New Testament itself, are preserved in the Catholic rite (and the Eastern Orthodox rites).

You also said:

Further, between Transubstantiation in the Mass and the Reformed Church’s understanding, is there one that requires an act of supernatural faith greater in comparison to the other’s view?

The Scriptures tell us, in John 6, that upon hearing Jesus describe the necessity to consume His Flesh and Drink His Blood, many disciples left because they could not accept such a hard teaching. It is the same today; and certainly some things are easier to believe than others. It might not necessarily be a question of the amount of faith, but of the right faith. If the Reformed theory of communion were true, as expressed historically, it would still require supernatural faith to believe. This is because it would not be possible to know by natural knowledge that the Body & Blood of Christ were actually received. But you can judge for yourself which is harder to believe: that the elements are merely bread, or that they have been transubstantiated into the true Body & Blood. Now just because something is more difficult to believe, does not make it true. But it might make it more likely, given that you know “narrow is the way,” etc.

For your last question, I am not sure that I understand. I think you might be worrying that if it is true that we can perform meritorious works, isn’t it also possible that we could fail to perform enough meritorious works to cover our sins? Is that what you’re asking? Or am I misreading?

Hope this has been some help. If not, please feel free to ask me to clarify or expound.

I’m really trying to follow, but I’m lost on how the bread and wine as elements don’t just become part of the person receiving it as the drop of water example showed.

I’ve never witnessed a Mass, but I understand that the Priest is supposed to be offering up a “unbloody” sacrifice. Is this crucifying Christ over and over? Please tell me, how the liturgy of Mass came to be. What symbols and elements are used beside the bread and wine and why are more things included that we aren’t given in the gospel account of the Last Supper?

The sacrament of The Lord’s Supper is given to believers in order to strengthen our faith, and it is certain unbelievers do take it to their own further condemnation, but I don’t think it is helpful for the Reformed to speak of a Lutheran as taking it “by mouth” and of themselves( Reformed) as taking it “by faith”. I suppose a Lutheran IS taking it by faith in through their mouth, so these distinctions among Protestants I’m not getting.

Further, between Transubstantiation in the Mass and the Reformed Church’s understanding, is there one that requires an act of supernatural faith greater in comparison to the other’s view? …. I’ve probably not expressed this well enough to be understood.

My last question: I understand that Reformed Christian’s must preach the Gospel to ourselves because the Law, not the Gospel, is written on our hearts. But I believe that I can’t pull the wool over God’s eyes and that if I, by natural compulsion, look to my sinful heart and desire to draw closer to God, I am attempting to work. Does this make sense? Then again it may be in the same category as the Christian who is doubting at some particular point. Then the question is “when does doubt become unbelief”? This leads to a further question. If I can do some meritorious works, what of all the other sins that I could never get rid of; degenerate thoughts and ill will for others. Remember, “Where we thought we were well, we are sick in soul. Were we thought we were holy we are in truth unholy and ungrateful. Our minds are dark and assailed by doubts….” Thank you and awaiting your reply and help.

I think I see where you’re coming from now. Transubstantiation does not amount to cannibalism anymore than ‘mere Real Presence’ does. Let me repeat it: there is nothing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that would make it cannibalistic that would not also make ‘mere Real Presence’ cannibalistic. I refuted the charge in the link above. In both doctrines, the Body & Blood are truly present, but in Transubstantiation, no bread remains. As far as truly consuming the Body of Christ, whatever happens given mere Real Presence also happens given Transubstantiation. There is no difference in that regard. The difference lies in the consecrated host and whether or not bread remains.

The difficulty here is that we are trying to apprehend the mystery in mundane terms of flesh and blood (which is all our minds have to work with anyway). These are correct terms, to be sure, but we must understand that the realities to which we are referring are not natural realities but super natural. So the reception of the Body of Christ is not the reception as if we were biting a chunk of Flesh off of His Body; that would be cannibalism. The reception is, like the mass itself, a meeting of heaven and earth where the natural (man) apprehends something supernatural (Body of Christ). It is the risen Body of Christ which we consume in the Eucharist; it is supernatural – not natural. The physical bread has been changed into the metaphysical Body of Christ. Only the appearance remains. When we eat ordinary food, it becomes us, but this heavenly food has the opposite effect. We become united to Christ! The Eucharist does not fit into our categories of thought except via symbolism.

And just as “what goes into man’s mouth does not defile him,” neither does it sanctify him. That is, the Eucharist is, as St. Ignatius explained, the “medicine of immortality,” but we are not sanctified by the Eucharist via the digestive process. The grace of the Eucharist is received spiritually, not materially. We cannot materially receive something which is immaterial.

So much for my lame attempt to explain an unfathomable mystery. Hope it helped in some way.

Thanks for your comments. I must say that your stance surprised me a little. I would have expected someone to point out how such a fleshly/carnal approach is somehow misguided. It would require some very enlightening, paradigm-shifting theological explanation before I could accept that eating Christ’s bloody flesh in the way you have described is an attractive or sound belief. Is there no other way to theologically frame this doctrine?

(Note: If you would, please spare me the standard discourse on John 6 and how some of the disciples found Jesus’ teaching to be difficult, etc.).

In case you are concerned that the Catholic doctrine is “fleshy” to the exclusion of Christ’s other attributes, a good point to note is recorded in the Catechism here:

“1374 . . . In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”"

The Catechism should be a great resource in general for seeing the various limits of the Catholic doctrine on this question: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Sincerely,

K. Doran

1. Belief in Transubstantiation is that, through the mystery of the consecration, ordinary bread and wine undergo a substantial change and actually become the Body and Blood of Christ. Mere ‘Real Presence’ denies that the bread has actually changed. It affirms that Christ is truly present but affirms the presence of the bread.

2. The only difference between the miraculous transformation of the host into bloody flesh and the miracle of Transubstantiation at every mass is accidental. In both cases the bread is truly transformed into the Body of Christ, but in the former, the appearance is changed along with the substance as as sign. I’m not commenting on the validity of any particular miraculous report; I’m just saying that it would be compatible with Catholic Eucharistic theology if such a thing were to happen. There are standing miracles as I understand it.

1) How would you describe the difference between transubstantiation and a belief in the “real presence”? What exactly distinguishes these two views?

2) How would you distinguish between transubstantiation and extreme physical or carnal views of the eucharistic species? For example, every so often I’ve heard claims that a host actually manifested as a bloody piece of flesh in someone’s mouth. This was viewed as a eucharistic miracle. I’m not saying that anyone at CTC would affirm such a claim, but it is a good example of a hyper physical/carnal view of the transubstantiated species. Are there any safeguards in Catholic doctrine that exclude such views? Or, on the other hand, should Catholics be fairly comfortable with such an idea (even if they deny the above “miracle”) given the doctrinal definition of transubstantiation? What are the limits in Catholic doctrine on this question, and where can they be found?

Many thanks,
Matthew Anderson

You said:

while what you say is correct, it is not the truth.

If something is correct, it is also true.

Regarding Eucharist on Saturday evening: Pliny the Younger, in the beginning of the second century, says that the Christians met before dawn not after sundown on Saturday.

Just because, in the Jewish mind, sabbath began at sundown on Friday in no way whatsoever indicates that our historical data is mistaken and that we should assume they met on the same day in favor of preserving Calvin’s error. This is what happens when we let ideology trump empirical data.

Do you have any source whatsoever that would confirm your belief?