Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

In a recent series of postings on a mailing list I am a part of, a discussion got started on the topic of Transubstantiation, a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the way in which Christ is present in the Eucharist. In the process, an article from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was quoted. One portion of the document really got my dander up...

That portion, and my response, follow.

Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but "This is my body" (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).

This is just plain lousy theology. First, it limits God based on our understanding. Second, it works against reinforcing the Dogma of the Incarnation because it promotes displacement theology - the idea that when God moves in, humanity (or, in this case, breadanity) moves out. This is in direct conflict with the Dogma of the Hypostatic Union, which states that God united with Man in the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is true God and true Man. The man did not have to move out to make room for God, and if he had, then Jesus Christ couldn't bridge the gap between God and us.

A theology of Transubstantiation, as explained above, does far more violence to Christological truth than most any other dogmatic view concerning the Eucharist - except possibly the concept of blessed memorial (a concept that denies the plain words of Jesus).

Further, whoever prepared this particular response, while rightly quoting Thomas Aquinas, missed the boat... namely Saint Paul. Paul was able to speak of the consecrated Eucharist as bread and cup... heck, the modern Roman liturgy does too, paraphrasing Paul (When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come again). Thomas Aquinas may have been a learned, pious, and holy man, but he really overstepped what was needed and appropriate with much of his writing. This is one glaring example of that fact.

Some Further Thoughts on Confession

Just some musings I posted elsewhere... thought they might go good here as well.

Sin is not just between us and God. When we sin -literally miss the mark- we harm our relationship with God and cause damage to our fellow man, even if we fail to recognize that fact. When we convince ourselves that 'confessing directly to God' is good enough (and certainly it is good... just not quite good enough) then we loose the valuable experience of humility that comes with the Confessional experience.

In the ancient Church, such confessions were public... everyone knew what you did, because you confessed to everyone. History tells us that the greater and greater influx of people to the Church, coupled with the harsh discipline of the Montanists and Donatists, lead to the end of public confession of specific sins and into the privacy of what we today consider Confession.

I am of the mind that there should be no specific Confession of Sins in Christian worship. These confessions are general, and sins are never general. Sins are always specific. Further, the liturgical texts (when properly employed) serve to paint a strong balance between sin & God's righteous anger and forgiveness & God's abundant mercy.

Further, to avoid the humiliation (that's what it is) of confessing our sins is a manifest refusal to take up our cross and be humiliated like Jesus.

Finally, Confession of sins needs to be thought of less juridically and more compassionately. The confessional act is a spiritual hospital for the sin-sick soul. We need the grace of the Great Physician, ministered by his residents, nurses, care-techs, etc... to avoid it is like not going to the hospital for a burst appendix.

Confession isn't very pleasant... but hell is even more unpleasant. When we fail to comprehend how our sins harm others, and fail to acknowledge them in utter humiliation, we fail to learn from our sins and avoid them in the future...

That's stubborn pride, and as we all know, pride goeth before a fall.

Apostolic Succession

The following is a posting of a response to a question on "Primitive Catholic Fellowship", an e-group I moderate on Yahoo! Groups. The question, in a nutshell, is "Why bother to have Apostolic Succession?"

Apostolic Succession is composed of two very important elements.

1) Apostolic Truth
2) Apostolic Recognition

As you have already stated, Apostolic Truth is vital for any community of faith.

Apostolic Recognition (or the historic Episcopate), referring to the laying on of hands as a means of transmitting authority for mission and ministry is a second matter. While there are several citations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, one only really needs to read the Scriptures in this instance to find a strong case for it.

First, the fact that there is at least a two-fold ordained ministry in Apostolic times is attested to in the Acts of the Apostles. At first, the Apostles operated as the only 'set apart' ministers of the Church. The twelve quickly replaced Judas (and the Greek word episcopos is used in Acts 1:20 to describe his vacated position) and after Pentecost they began to minister. After a time, the selected seven to serve the Church, laid hands upon them, and they became the first deacons (Acts 6: 1-7). It becomes clearly obvious, however, that they had a different ministry than the apostles/overseers. For example, they could baptize, but they could not impart the Holy Spirit (resuting in James and Peter having to go to Samaria to pray over those baptized by Philip (Acts 8: 14-17).

Now we come to the case of the Apostle Paul. For many, Paul is the absolute proof that Apostolic Succession is un-necessary. In fact, he states in the introduction to 1 Corinthians that he is, "chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Jesus Christ." This man, the great Apostle to the Gentiles was unquestionably chosen to minister as an Apostle by Jesus Christ directly...

So it's funny that the Holy Spirit moves in Acts 13, commanding the prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch to 'dedicate Barnabas and Saul for the special work to which I have called them." Jesus alrady called him to be an Apostle to the Gentiles... to preach the good news of repentance and mercy... so why the prayer? Why the setting apart?

The leaders of the Church at Antioch were established themselves by the apostles. They, in turn, recognized the call of God on Paul and sent him forth to lead a missionary effort. The Church participated in the ministry set in motion by God. Paul, a man who stated he was beholden to no man for his authority, submitted to the laying on of hands in obedience to the Holy Spirit's calling, in order to do the will of God.

Why? We'll probably never know. At the risk of sounding like I am trying to cop out of the discussion, it is something we simply cannot understand.

Are there Ante-Nicene references to Apostolic Succession, both doctrinally and through the laying on of hands? Yes. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Origen, and even the Apostolic Constitutions speak of the practice. But if you don't accept it on this Scriptural basis (as well as the other Scriptures that could be brought into play on the topic), then there really isn't a point in quoting the ANF, is there?

Now, to take a moment to debate the merits and long-term effects of Succession...

Obviously the tacticle succession hasn't been effective against preventing heresy. Plenty of people have the historic episcopate and are wallowing in the bog (so to speak). When the Church got split up, first in the Montanist and Donatist eras, and later in the politicization of the Church, the episcopate was comprimised. Thus, all kinds of people claim (and do have) the tactile succession, but have erred greviously in their manner of living or in the content of the faith they profess. The laying on of hands is not an insurance policy against heresy, mainly because it has been used as a weapon since the early 300's.

On the other hand, while I'd take the Apostolic Faith over any mere line of bishops any day, we would be absolutely foolish if we refused to accept the laying on of hands if it was offered to us. Why intentionally deprive ourselves of both sides of Apostolic Succession?

Let us also remember, we cannot take the ministry upon ourselves. As a child I felt a calling to the priesthood, but I couldn't ordain myself. Someone has to examine candidates, train them, and then recognize them through some means... if one could simply delcare themselves ordained, then Simon Magus would have needed nothing other than to be a faithful Christian in order to recieve the apostolic power to confer the Holy Spirit. Or, even more to the point, the Samaratans of Acts 8 wouldn't have needed Peter and John to lay hands on them... or even Philip to baptize them. All they should have needed to hear was the preaching by Philip, and then they could have handled the rest of it themselves.

In closing, is someone outside of the historic episcopate doomed? Surely not. However, why would someone want to refuse the gift of continuity through the laying on of hands to compliment the apostolic teachings of the early Church? God raised up Paul, but Paul still allowed himself to submit to the Church's earthly means of being set apart for ministry.

Who are we to argue with God... or Paul?

Let Go and Let God

Personal and Pastoral Reflections on the Mystery of Reconciliation

One morning, upon awaking, I was particularly troubled by some sins that were plaguing me. These were sins that I had been aware of, that I had taken to God the previous night, but that I was never able to get over. They were repeated sins, ones that I knew darned well I needed to stop, but that were so simple to fall into that I almost gave them no second thought. As I was trying to pray that morning, I decided that I needed to go to Confession. This was nothing new for me, as I have been going to Confession since I was baptized in the mid-80's. However, I had been in a slump, and for quite some time had avoided the mercies of the Rite of Reconciliation. Why had I done such a thing? Simple pride. As a Presbyter, I did not want to go and look another Presbyter in the face and have him think badly of me.

Seems like an irrational fear, given the fact that in the nearly six years of my presbyterial ministry, I have never once looked down upon anyone who has come to me to make a confession of sin. Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems so very, very difficult to approach the graces of Absolution through the confession of one's sins. Even as a Presbyter, when I walk into a confessional, I think to myself that I must know how Pharaoh and his horsemen felt when they saw the wall of water starting to crash back down on them. There is a reason for this feeling, and the best explanation I have found for it comes from a surprising place - a twelve-step program called "Emotions Anonymous".

The twelve-steps form a very powerful way to understand the Rite of Reconciliation, and to prepare our hearts and minds for the worthy reception of the graces of Holy Absolution. In the pages that follow, I will be paraphrasing some of the material found in the "Emotions Anonymous" twelve-step program. I will be applying the concepts of sin to them, so what you see here will be somewhat different than the material you would find in an "EA" source.

The first basic concept that we must grasp about our faith life after sin is this: We must admit that we are powerless to overcome our sins, and that our sinfulness has become unmanageable. This is a very stirring, shaking, and fearful realization for anyone who has come to it. In spite of the fear, however, we must admit that we have no power to help ourselves. Coming to that realization - the realization that our sinfulness is overwhelming when we try to stand alone - begins a long path that leads us to the need for reconciliation.

The second concept that follows immediately upon the fearful awareness of the first is that there is someone greater than we are who can deal with our sins. As a result, we must stop trying to fix everything ourselves. We cannot atone for our own sins, failings, and shortcomings. We must realize that only God can aid us in overcoming our despair and pain - the emotions that sin causes in the soul.

Following the realization that God has to intervene, we must proceed at once to turn our mind, body, and spirit over to the will of God. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (a Roman Catholic religious order, better known by their more common name, the Jesuits) had a total grasp of this concept, and in Spiritual Exercises, he prays:

"Take, Lord, receive: all my liberty, my memory, understanding, my entire will. Give me only your love and your grace: that is enough for me. Take, Lord, receive all I have and possess. You have given all to me, now I return it."

To be able to change our lives, to be able to overcome our sinfulness, we must stop trying to overcome on our own, and we must give to God the reins of our heart. We cannot try to make meaningful changes, to avoid sin, the convert our spirits to follow the calling of God, if we ourselves cannot die daily to ourselves, and live daily unto Christ Jesus.

Once we have come to a point where we are ready to turn the wheel over to God, we have to do something about our own will. Yes, our own ornery companion for the journey, our will, left to its own devices, will soon find a way to leave in the dust all the progress that one had made up to now. Our will often finds ways to sabotage the next step - one of the very important steps in the process of overcoming sin: we must search our lives, our hearts, our minds, our desires, leaving no stone - or sin - unturned. We must make a total and complete inventory of our sinfulness and come to the realization of just how full of sin and corruption we have become. This is, of course, easier said than done.

Our own will is not all that likely to submit to the discipline of admitting our failings. Thus, when the time comes to prepare for confession, I advise penitents to write down their sins, and to use some guide - such as the Decalogue - to assist them in making an examination of their lives. By praying the prayer of Ignatius, and making a serious examination of our lives, we can effectively tackle the next step in reclaiming our lives from the stranglehold of sin.

It is now time to admit to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our sins. For most, this is when the terror begins. I have heard virtually every possible excuse for avoiding this step. In fact, I have used some of them myself. The root reason that we wish to strongly to avoid this part of the step is the fact that mankind is, in our day and age, supremely prideful. Our egos are so fragile that even the slightest bruise seems impossible to recover from. And yet, it is not until we have confessed our faults that we can claim the victory that God gives us in Christ.

The most common complaint I hear when talking to someone about this step in the process is that the sinner does not want to take the sins to another person. Often one will hear it said, "I don't believe in telling a minister my sins. It's none of his business." Sadly, such thinking is flawed. While the intention of this message is not to give you a full, mechanical understanding of the Rite of Reconciliation, it is necessary to understand why the Rite exists so that we might properly consider the great mercy that flows from the heart of Christ.

If we are to live by the biblical standards for Christian living, we must tell someone else of our sins, for as the Letter of James tells us:

". . . confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed." (James 5: 16a)

We have no choice! We must confess our sins to someone else. If we do not do so, we are disobeying the inspired Word of God. As a result, we must ask ourselves the question, "Whom, logically, should we confess to?" In the ancient Church, the matter was simple. One went before the Church, confessed their sins in public, and made amends during the season we now call Lent. At the first Easter Eucharist, they would be readmitted to the fellowship of Christ's Church through the Eucharistic banquet. As a result, the words of Christ were literally fulfilled:

"Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops." (Luke 12: 2-3)

Everyone knew what you had done, but that wasn't so bad because you knew about everyone else's faults and failings. Over time, however, as mass conversions to the faith occurred, the ability to demand accountability to an entire fellowship of believers began to disappear. Views on Luke 12 suddenly became very detached from any notion of application to the daily life of the Christian. Luke 12 quickly became a prediction of what the last judgment would entail: everyone's sins would be revealed. As a result, something had to be done.

While the congregation heard a penitent's sins, they did not pronounce the absolution of the sins. This was restricted to the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops (and later the Presbyters) of the Church. The reason derives from Jesus' first appearance to his disciples after the Resurrection in the Gospel of John:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld." (John 20: 19-23)

Only a successor to the Apostles could forgive or withhold forgiveness, and there was indeed a strong awareness of the need for continuity in the Apostolic ministry, as the first chapter of Acts teaches us:

In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry... For it is written in the Book of Psalms, 'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and 'Let another take his office.'" (see Acts 1: 15-20)

Just as a nurse would discuss continuity of care in a hospital, the Apostles were discussing the continuation of the apostolic ministry by filling a vacant position. For this reason, the historic episcopate is often called "Apostolic Succession". Therefore, the charism of the apostolic office was, by the power of the Holy Spirit, conferred upon Matthias, and he became a part of the "Apostolic College".

Thus, the Bishops (and, by extension, the Presbyters) of the Church today have the authority to declare the absolution and forgiveness of sins, because the Scripture records the transmittal of that authority by Christ himself.

Not wanting to experience public humiliation, men and women throughout the Christian world began to flock to their clergy in private so that their confessions might be heard and absolution granted.

There are, of course, benefits to making a confession to a person instead of directly to God in your prayers. Your prayers do not hold you accountable, do not confront you with the filth of your sins as does another individual. When we pray privately, we tend to have a way of sanitizing our sins, making them seem more palatable. As a result, nothing ever gets done about them. Additionally, our own quite prayer does not supply us with advice, with a remedy to our sins. This is not to say that every piece of advice that a confessor gives to a penitent is going to be so perfect that it helps the individual avoid every sin for the rest of his or her life, but it is much more helpful than simply trying to thumb through the Bible and find one's own answers. Just as a man who proclaims himself to be a surgeon of the body cannot function without the proper education, we cannot work on our spiritual lives by declaring ourselves to be qualified to fix our own problems. We must have outside assistance, or we will surely find ourselves repeating the same sins over and over again.

The next thing we must do is to simply trust in God's mercy. We must believe that, according to his promise, he puts our sins as far from us as the east is from the west. Our sins are removed, wiped clean, deleted - all for the sake of the Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

After we have confessed and have received counsel, we must attempt to make things right with those we have injured. Perhaps it's the restoration of property, the mending of a broken relationship, or even a little self-mortification, when we find ourselves in a situation where we can no longer make amends to someone we have wronged.

In a similar vein, we must also be ready to sever ties to those things that have caused us to sin. Perhaps we need to cancel magazine subscriptions, spend less time watching television or surfing the Internet. Perhaps it means being careful about the new friends we make, and whom we associate with. Sometimes it will mean ending a friendship that is causing sin and pain to well up within us. No matter what the sacrifice we will be called to make to avoid sin, it will be something we can do, if we only turn our efforts over to the Holy Spirit to guide and to confirm.

And yet just as it would seem to be over, there is still more that must be done to reinforce the grace that we receive through the Rite of Reconciliation. We must constantly attempt to see ourselves as God would see us, and when we find ourselves slipping into sin and disorder, we must rush back to God and to our confessor, make our sins known, receive absolution, and so continue the cycle of growth and strengthening. We must reinforce our confession with frequent prayer, and we must center our prayer - especially in times of great temptation - on our attempts to avoid sin and to master our flesh by the power of the Spirit. We must also encourage others to do the same.

After reading all these long-winded, high-sounding comments, many people will probably point out that the days of frequent confession, and its practice by many, is long past. Perhaps this is true. If it is, it is a great sorrow, for the grace that is inherently present in the pronouncement of Holy Absolution is beyond all telling.

It is terribly presumptuous of us, who now live over nineteen hundred years separated from Christ and the Apostles, to change the process laid down in his Word concerning the remittance of our sinfulness. Social conventions, personal fears, and egotistical pride prevent us from approaching the wellspring of grace present in Confession. Many will say, "I make my confession at the Divine Liturgy, and there I do receive Absolution." Indeed, that is true, but such an approach is minimalist at best. One usually makes the confession because it is printed in the service book, not out of any personal need or desire to do so.

It has been suggested that the Penitential Rite should be removed from the public liturgy of the Church. I totally agree. Why? Because I believe that everyone should be coming to Confession at least weekly, if not daily. In an ideal world, the Presbyter would be sitting inside the Communion rail, or in a confessional, and as you entered the Church for the service, you would walk forward, kneel, make your confession and receive counsel and absolution, and then go to your seat and give quiet thanksgiving until the Liturgy began. This is the custom in the Eastern Church, and our Eastern brethren have no confession of sin in their Liturgy.

Let us pray for the day when we are willing to be held accountable for our sins, to make changes in our lives to avoid sin, and to make confession more routine and less fearful, so that many will avail themselves of the great power of the Keys, present to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacramental Rite of Reconciliation.

All Scripture Quotations in the Preceeding Article are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, (C) 2001 Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. Used with permission.