Roman Catholicism says the Blessed Eucharist or the Mass
is an act of worship wherein the bread and wine are turned
by the priest, who uses the power of God, into the body and blood of Jesus Christ
who is true God and true man.
The Catholic Church
originally gave out communion under the form of bread and wine to the
laity. Then it forbade this and gave
communion in the form of bread alone.
Only the priest could drink the wine that was supposedly the blood of
Christ. The Protestant Reformers
condemned this practice most vehemently and welcomed the people to receive
under both kinds. Pope Gelasius I decreed that anybody that would not take both
kinds should be made to do it or expelled from the Church for taking one kind
is a sacrilegious division of the mystery of communion (page 24, The Primitive
Faith and Roman Catholic Developments).
If the bread is the living resurrected Jesus then you would receive the
whole Jesus by the bread alone. Gelasius I is denying this so he
was denying that the Eucharist was literally Jesus. It was spiritually Jesus which is the same
thing as saying it was symbolically Jesus.
Gelasius also said that with the saying of the
words of Jesus over the bread and wine to call them the body and blood of Jesus
the nature of bread and wine is not changed (Bingham’s Antiquities, book 15,
Chapter 5). So they only become symbols.
The Catholic believed and
still believes that the complete body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, the
entire Christ, could be received through either kind alone. The Protestants claimed that communion was
incomplete unless the bread was eaten and the wine drunk.
And besides when
the Church says Jesus commanded taking the chalice its refusal to give the
chalice is simply an admission that he was wrong to demand this. The Church disapproves of Catholics taking
the Eucharist wine out of small individual glasses rather than from the chalice
even though the purpose is to avoid the exchange of germs. The Church says that using individual glasses
ruins the idea that the Church becomes one through drinking the one cup. The amazing thing about this hypocrisy is how
that could be forbidden while not giving the wine at all is allowed!
The Catholics base their doctrine on Jesus' teaching in John 6 though it cannot be proved that it refers to the Last Supper. In John 6:51 and 6:58, Jesus says that the person who eats of the bread of life will live forever and have God without mentioning the cup. John 6:51 was said at a point when people could not be blamed for taking Jesus to be talking symbolically. He said he was the bread of life and that to come to him was to eat. So it was symbolism. So Jesus saying we must eat the bread of life it proves nothing for he must have therefore been talking that symbolical way. It was symbolic bread of life he was discussing not communion.
Now to the next verse,
6:58. It occurs in a part Catholics take literally. The Catholics
say the Jews seem to
have stopped Jesus from talking symbolically in this part and so he is talking
literally in this verse. In verse 58 Jesus says the bread that comes down
from Heaven is to be eaten so a man can live forever. No cup mentioned.
But read the verses previous to it in the allegedly literal section.
In them, Jesus had made it clear that the two were needed before therefore he
needed only mention one at this verse 58. His hearers would have known or
realised later that he did not mean to eliminate the need for the blood. There is no contradiction. He is just trying to be quick.
If there is a contradiction in the text then we may solve it by saying that the eat me and drink my blood symbolised the same thing - spiritually assimilating Jesus. Jesus after all was not his blood. He asked us to drink his blood meaning be close to him. If the blood drinking meant that then eating the body means something similar.
This would mean that the passage is not about transubstantiation. This is sufficient proof that there are no
grounds to take the passage literally for it might be a contradiction if you
do.
Jesus
said that the bread he would give was his flesh for the life of the world. Later he said that one must eat his flesh and
drink his blood in order to have eternal life.
We have seen that the Roman
Catholic Church argues that the bread he would give being his flesh for the world
proves that giving communion under the form of bread is sufficient and the
Church gives the laity the wafer only. But
the bread and wine could still be needed and communion under one kind forbidden. The Church believes that in the Eucharist
Jesus gives the bread which is his body for all and that doesn’t exclude him
also giving the cup of his blood for all.
The next Catholic effort to prove that one kind will do is the quotation of 1 Corinthians 11:27 where Paul speaks of evil people who eat the bread or drink the cup being guilty of offending the body and blood of the Lord. This “or” does not necessarily imply what the Catholics said it does. Suppose the two were necessary. Then a miscreant who takes the bread is insulting the body. Then if the miscreant takes the drink he is insulting the blood. There was a lot of abusing of the Lord's Supper going on so some might have been taking the bread and not the cup and vice versa. Also, to insult the body is to insult the blood too for it is insulting a person. To insult the blood is to insult the body for the same reason. The verse fails to refute the Protestant position. It must be realised that to take one insults God for communion is supposed to indicate willingness to serve God by devoting your own body and blood to God by taking the symbolic body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Catholics do not think the or implies what they say it implies for they would hold that nobody would have been taking the bread alone or the wine alone in the situation Paul is dealing with.
It cannot be proved from
the Bible that one kind is enough. Protestants say that Jesus told the apostles
to drink the cup so that it is his will that all do so now. Catholics hold that this was a command for
the apostles alone. But if Jesus gave
the cup to his disciples then he would be for anybody else getting it too. Catholics argued that it is restricted to the
celebrant of the Eucharist – but at the Last Supper, Jesus was the celebrant and
he shared the cup.
Catholics used to insist
that since the Bible bans sacrilege it by implication commands the cup to be
withheld from the laity for it contains the blood of Christ in case it gets
spilled. One might object that if that’s
a reason then the priest shouldn’t be taking the blood either. Catholics reply that no matter what is done
some loss will occur (which is true for the cup has to be wiped and washed and
some of the contents will be absorbed by the lips) and to keep it to a minimum
the cup is not to be given to the laity.
But the priest can say the words of Jesus over the cup without intending
to turn the portion that will be lost into Jesus. Better to keep the loss to a minimum which
the Catholics say they do but don’t do.
If the priest may drain the chalice so may the people.
If Jesus really intended
to feed us with himself and the doctrine that eating the wafer is enough then he would not have turned the wine into himself
for no self-respecting God would do unnecessary miracles.
Jesus claimed that his
miracles were all sensible. If Jesus
turned wine into his blood to be our drink then he was wasting his time and
energy if he could really be received whole and entire under either kind
alone. Then the bread would be enough and there
would be no need to change the wine into blood. The miracles of Jesus imply that
the Catholic doctrine is anti-scriptural.
Today, Catholics are
allowed to have communion the two ways.
Sacrilege, though it is not called that, is allowed now. If Jesus meant to become our food and drink
he certainly would not have wanted people to take the chalice for it would be
unholy and disrespectful.
Coeliacs cannot take the wafer for health reasons so they have
to take the wine. Catholics might argue
that when Jesus told all people to eat him when he said he gave his flesh for
the world he would have meant, “To drink the blood is to consume my body
because it is in it as well to coeliacs can eat me
that way.” When Jesus said we are to eat
him and to drink his blood in John 6 and if he knew about coeliacs
then it is obvious that John 6 is not connected with the Last Supper at
all. It cannot be used to prove stuff
about whether it is right to believe both kinds will do or not.
What about recovering
alcoholic priests who will fall off the wagon if they taste communion
wine? Catholics would have to punish
them for quitting by banning them from saying Mass or permitting them to
let someone drain the cup for them – a practice which they have forbidden.
Protestants must ask
themselves if communion is incomplete under one kind then what happens if you
eat the bread one day and don’t take the cup until the day after? Does time make any difference? When you take the second element the
sacrament happens though nothing happens if you just take the one.
If Jesus is in the bread
it is hard to believe that only half of him would be there and that you need to
drink the wine to receive the other half.
And what about a person
who has no stomach like a bomb victim whose body has been half blown away? Are we to believe that the Eucharistic Christ
has no sympathy for them for they cannot receive his body?
It is very possible that Jesus used unfermented wine at the Last Supper for nowhere in the Bible does it say that wine is needed for communion (page 10, Should Christians Drink Wine?). Alcohol is poison so it is hard to see why Jesus would use poison as a symbol of his life-giving blood. There is a total difference between juice and wine for the chemical transformation is thorough. If you could use wine when you were meant to use grape juice you might as well use water. When the Eucharist is not valid when water is used then it is likely that it is invalid when wine is used for the most the Bible would mean when it requires the fruit of the vine would be fresh unfermented wine.
Romanism says that Masses said with wine that is not the product of the grape, say blackcurrant wine etc, are invalid. Jesus will not turn the bread and wine into himself for the wrong wine is used. Materials matter more than God in this theology!
Apologetics and Catholic
Doctrine, Book 2, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill
& Son,
Apologetics for the
Pulpit, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne
Ltd,
Born-Again Catholics and
the Mass, William C Standridge Independent Faith
Catholicism and
Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press,
Confession of a Roman
Catholic, Paul Whitcomb, TAN,
Critiques of God, Edited
by Peter A Angeles (Religion and Reason Section),
Prometheus Books,
Documents of the Christian
Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University
Press,
Eucharist, Centre of
Christian Life, Rod Kissinger SJ, Liguori
Publications,
Fifty Years in the Church
of Rome, Fr Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications,
Is Jesus Really Present in
the Eucharist? Michael Evans, Catholic Truth Society,
Handbook to the
Controversy with
Living in Christ, A Dreze SJ,
Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne, 1969
Martin Luther, Richard
Marius, Belknap Press of
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Roman Catholic Claims,
Charles Gore, MA, Longmans, Green & Co,
Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism, William Webster, Banner of
Truth,
Secrets of Romanism,
Joseph Zaccello, Loizeaux
Brothers,
The Catechism of the
Catholic Church, Veritas,
The Early Church, Henry
Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Mass, Sacrifice and
Sacrament, William F Dunphy, CSSR,
Liguori Publications,
The Primitive Faith and
Roman Catholic Developments, Rev John A Gregg, APCK,
The Student’s Catholic
Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates,
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Bob and Penny Lord, Journeys of
Faith,
Why Does God…? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls, Bucks, 1970
The Web
Transubstantiation, Is it
a True Doctrine?