Lux Lucet

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” – John 6:54

Occasionally, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss this passage with other Evangelicals. During our conversation I have mentioned that Rome uses this passage as a proof text for its doctrine of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation, Rome asserts, occurs when the priest consecrates the bread and wine during the Mass. At that time, the bread and wine are changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Rome teachers that, when its adherents partake of communion, they are eating and drinking the actual body and blood of Christ. I’ve said these things supposing that Rome’s teaching on transubstantiation is at least somewhat understood by Evangelicals. As it turns out, I was wrong.

But not only was I surprised to find that, at least in some cases, Protestants did not realize just how radically the Romanist position on the Lord’s Supper differs from what the Bible teaches, I also found a fairly deep-seated unwillingness on the part of Evangelicals to believe what Rome, by its own admission, has taught for centuries.

For a non-Catholic, grappling with Roman Catholic doctrine can be more than a little frustrating. Part of this is Rome’s historic practice. The Church is fond of making thunderous dogmatic statements. But when asked to back them up, the questioner is often met with double-talk and obfuscation. For example, Rome has declared in no uncertain terms that the pope is infallible when speaking ex-cathedra. But ask Rome for its list of infallible papal statements, and you’ll get the runaround. But this is not so in the case of transubstantiation. Rome has made quite clear what she believes on this subject, and there really should be no question about it in the minds of Evangelicals. Consider the following statements from Rome,

If anyone shall deny, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are verily, really, and substantially contained the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but shall say that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

– Council of Trent, Session 13, Cannon I.

If anyone shall say, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

– Council of Trent, Session 13, Cannon II

Some Evangelicals may be unmoved by these quotes, arguing that this is just ancient history. “The Council of Trent was held in the 16th century,” they’ll say. “Rome has changed since then,” or so they believe. But Rome really hasn’t changed. Semper eadem is its boast. Always the same. That this is the case with transubstantiation can be seen from the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which quotes the very words of the Council of Trent on this subject. The following citations are from the 1994 English translation.

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.”

– Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1374

It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in the sacrament.

– Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1375

One could produce quote after quote on this subject from Roman Catholic sources to the point where it would become tiresome for both reader and author. As such, I will limit my quotes to the above. Suffice it to say that if Romanist priests actually did what they claim to do in the consecration of the Eucharist, the Church of Rome would be guilty of the of ritual cannibalism. Commenting on transubstantiation, the Westminster Confession puts it this way,

That doctrine which maintains a change of the a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

– Westminster Confession of Faith, XXIX.6

Another argument Evangelicals make in defense of Rome – why so many Evangelicals feel the need to defend Rome is another subject – is that not all Catholics believe transubstantiation as taught by the Roman Curia. No doubt this is true. There are something in the neighborhood of 2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, and it would be rather shocking if every single one of them believed the same thing about the Eucharist. That said, the proper response to this argument is, so what? When the discussion turns to what Rome teaches on the Lord’s Supper, or any other topic for that matter, what individual Roman Catholics may or may not believe is beside the point. What matters is what the Church teaches. And in very clear and unequivocal language, Rome has endorsed transubstantiation.

The Meaning of Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood

If John chapter 6 is not an endorsement of transubstantiation, what is Jesus’ point? First, let’s consider the context of the passage. This is the day after the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. In his discussion with the Jews, it becomes clear that the people want to see another miracle, just as they had the day before. Turing the discussion away from food that perishes, Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives to you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Second, the people crowded around Jesus at Capernaum misunderstood him in much the same way that the Samaritan woman at the well misunderstood him in John chapter 4. Consider the following exchange, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw. (John 4:13 -15). From her response, it is clear that she understood Jesus to be talking about physical water. But in this account, Christ’s use of water was a figure of speech for his teaching.

The Jews at Capernaum show themselves to be of like literal mind. In response to Jesus’ statement in 6:32 and 33, the people answer, “Lord, give us the bread always.” Jesus immediately offers a corrective to this, responding, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). From this, it is clear that Jesus when Jesus speaks of “bread from heaven,” he is talking about spiritual nourishment, propositional truth, not a loaf of bread. To eat the bread of heaven means to believe the words of Christ. Belief is an activity of the mind, not the stomach.

To drive home that he is talking about belief in the truth, not eating and drinking, Jesus says, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).

Third, the other figure of speech in this passage, drink my blood, is to be understood in like fashion. Consider the words of Peter after Jesus had finished speaking to the people, many of whom turned away from following Jesus on account of his words. When Jesus asked the disciples, “Do you also want to go away?,” Peter responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:66-69). Notice that the supposedly future first pope did not misunderstand Jesus as did the woman at the well, the Jews in Capernaum or the Council of Trent. By his response, it is clear that Peter understood Jesus’ statements about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were figures of speech Christ used for his teaching, “You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ.”

Conclusion

Too many people want to look the other way when it comes to the apostasy and blasphemy of Rome. In fact, when someone does point out the obvious heresy of Rome, he is often met either with embarrassed silence or even rebuke from the Evangelical community. But Rome is not a Christian church. It is a synagogue of Satan. And as those charged with declaring the truth, Christians do no favors to the cause of Christ by refusing to understand or speak against the many gross heresies of the Church of Rome, of which transubstantiation is merely one example.