Response to this article by Daniel Sapia
| The Argentine Protestant Daniel Sapia, Webmaster and editor of the site he called “conocereislaverdad.org”, includes, among his many anti-Catholic articles, an article in which he deals with the topic of Transubstantiation. |
Transubstantiation is the Catholic Dogma according to which, in the Holy Mass, the substances of bread and wine become the substances of the Body and Blood of Christ.
We try, in this installment, to give an answer attached to the Catholic doctrinal line; And if this text – written for the Glory of God – also serves the brothers of the Eastern Churches, thanks be given to God. I’ll start with some initial notes:
First: Mr. Sapia is surely neither the first nor the last to “analyze” this Catholic Doctrine, many have already done so and the doctrine persists as TRUTH believed by millions of Catholics throughout centuries of history.
Second: Thank God I am not the only one who defends the Catholic Doctrine, and this is not the first time, and probably not the last, that I write in favor of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Third: As a faithful Catholic that I am, I understand that it is my duty to defend my doctrine from the questions that Protestants raise against it, and take into account what the Bible says:
“There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce pernicious heresies and who, denying the Owner who acquired them, will bring upon themselves swift destruction,” 2Peter 2:1.
Let’s look at our estranged brother’s first comment:
| (The Catholic Church) has designed a kind of “requirements to be met” to obtain the long-awaited eternal salvation of the soul. |
This perfect plot produces an implicit spiritual slavery in the hearts of its faithful, making them assume that by believing and obeying what the (Roman) Church imposes, they will be pleasing to God and therefore “deserving” of their heavenly destiny.
The mechanism is simple: a) The Roman Church teaches its faithful that communion with God is realized and update eating the substantially real body of Christ, present in a host (victim).
First Error: With these words, I would give the (erroneous) impression that the Catholic Church teaches that Communion with God is only achieved by communing at Mass, which is false, since the Church recognizes OTHER means of achieving communion with God strong[1]
Furthermore, along the same lines, the Church does not establish the reception of the Eucharist as indispensable for salvation.
| b) As (as they teach) only one Catholic Priest, through a special rite, can convert the bread into the real body of Christ, and administer (offer) it… |
Second Error: What the Church TEACHES is:
Only the validly ordained priest possesses the power to consecrate. The Fourth Lateran Council addressed this point against the Waldenses, who themselves rejected the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and attributed the same powers to all the faithful: “This sacrament can only be performed by a validly ordained priest,” Dz.430. The Council of Trent also emphasized this when dealing with the Protestant doctrine of the “universal priesthood”, Dz.961, 949.
And WHO does the Catholic Church consider “validly ordained priests” other than Roman Catholic priests?
For the moment, the Catholic Church recognizes the ministers of the Eastern Orthodox Church as true priests, and recognizes their Eucharistic consecration as valid. The Catholic Church recognizes, therefore, that in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is also Eucharistic Communion.[2]
If mr. Sapia is under the impression that “communion with God only through the Eucharist” is limited to the Roman Catholic Church, he will have to EXPLAIN why the Catholic Church accepts the validity of the Eucharist made by Orthodox.
Because if the “trap set” is intended to “enslave the faithful”, prescribing that “there is only communion with God in the Roman Church”, then the Church WOULD HAVE TO DENY the validity of the Eucharist celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The curious thing is that it does precisely the opposite. That is to say, the FACTS contradict Mr. Sapia!The imaginary “trap set” does not exist, at least not as Mr. Sapia. We will ask Mr. He knows that he SHOULD PROVE that the Catholic Church believes that it alone has the power to celebrate the Eucharist and that the Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist is the ONLY MEANS of achieving communion with God.
| …and since (as they teach) only a Catholic Priest has the “power” to absolve sins in the name of God, essential requirement prior to being able to take communion (eat the host) in a state of grace (without serious sin)… |
Third Error: The Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH that it is “indispensable” to confess to a priest before participating in Communion, precisely because there may be situations in which there is no time or way to confess. Then the Church establishes a PERFECT CONTRICTION as necessary,[3], following the biblical line:
“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Therefore, let everyone examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.”, 1 Corinthians 11:27-28.
So mr. Sapia DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the exceptions contemplated by the Church, which, far from restricting access to the Eucharist, provides us with the means and possibilities to take communion.
| d) We can remain in communion with God by turning ONLY to the Roman Catholic Church (the only possessor of “such” privileges). |
The trap is set.
Unfortunately for mr. Sapia, things ARE NOT AS HE PROPOSES, so that “conclusion” of his is simply wrong. As for there being a “trap set”, the truth is that no one can think that there is ANY, taking into account that the Catholic Church:
a) Recognize other means to achieve Communion with God, apart from Eucharistic communion.
b) Recognizes that the Eastern Orthodox Church also provides Eucharistic communion.
c) Grant the faithful, in case of need, sincere repentance (perfect contrition), in order to be able to take communion.
If mr. Sapia was wrong in the three paragraphs that led him to the “conclusion”, so the beginning of his article is already a BAD BASIS to talk about Transubstantiation, since it was not based on what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches, but on what he thought it taught. Who is your lawsuit against, Mr. Sapia, against the Catholic Church, or against your personal and forged vision of the Catholic Church?We beg Mr. Sapia tell us WHERE his three paragraphs came from in which he talks about what the Catholic Church “teaches”… because it is worrying that they are not as accessible to us as they are to him.
We note, for the record, that on these three points, Sapia limited himself to showing what he supposes the Catholic Church teaches, without supporting his hypotheses with numerals from the Catholic Catechism, which is strange if we consider that Sapia is usually very fruitful in showing numerals from the Catechism talking about Catholic doctrine, and among his examples of such fruitfulness there are some in this same article.
| If they taught, as the Bible says, that the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist (which means “thanksgiving”) It’s just a REMINDER (as Jesus himself says: “Do it in memory of me”), and that absolution of sins is given directly by God, without the necessary intervention of any mortal, then They would lose important elements that the Roman Ecclesiastical Curia uses to keep its parishioners subject. to their altars. |
These points give us a lot to think about:
First: Mr. Sapia seems not to agree, according to him, is the Eucharist a “simple reminder”, or also a “Thanksgiving”?NOTE: The Greek word Ευχαριστια means “Good Thanksgiving”, this rules out the proper meaning of “Eucharist” being equivalent to a “simple reminder”.
Second: Mr. Sapia accuses the Catholic Church of wanting to “have elements” with which to “keep the parishioners subject”, but does not PROVE his accusations, he limits himself to throwing stones at the Catholic Church, although we have already shown that it does not do “the things” that according to Mr. Sapia, lead to “subjugating the parishioners.”
Third: Mr. Sapia takes advantage of the occasion to attack the Sacrament of Penance, stating that the absolution of sins is given “directly” by God, obviously this contradicts the Bible:
“Having said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven;from whom you retain, they remain retained.”, Saint John 20:22-23., where Christ states that without the “intervention of the mortal”, sin is RETAINED.
| In the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist are “truly, really and substantially contained” the Body and Blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, consequently, the entire Christ” (Cc. of Trento: DS 1651). “This presence is called ‘real’, not exclusively, as if the other presences were not ‘real’, but par excellence, because it is substantial, and through it Christ, God andman, becomes totally present” (MF 39). (CIC N° 1374) |
The cult of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine, among other ways, by kneeling or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration to the Lord.”The Catholic Church has given and continues to give this cult of adoration that is due to the sacrament of the Eucharist not only during the mass, but also outside its celebration: preserving with the greatest care the consecrated hosts, presenting them to the faithful so that they can venerate them with solemnity, carrying them in procession” (MF 56).(CIC No. 1378)
Through consecration, the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is carried out. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine, Christ himself, alive and glorious, is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body, his Blood, his soul and his divinity (cf. Cc. of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).(CIC No. 1413)
Canon I of Trent on the Eucharist: If anyone denies that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently all Christ, are truly, really and substantially contained;but on the contrary I would say that it is only in him as a sign or in figure, or virtually;be anathema.
This alleged power of priests to create anew on Catholic altars the body of Christ and then offering it to God in “the sacrifice of the mass [in which] our Lord is immolated… [and] Christ perpetuates in a bloodless manner the sacrifice offered on the cross” is the distinctive mark of Roman Catholicism.
There is something I don’t see clearly, Mr. Sapia showed numerals from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and definitions from the Council of Trent on Transubstantiation, but None of these quotes say that the priest “creates anew” the Body of Christ. There is an error here: That IS NOT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.Obviously I can’t comment on something that is not what I believe.
| That is why Catholicism is separated by an unbridgeable chasm from all other religions and especially from evangelical Christianity. |
This is another location ERROR.We have already shown that The Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox Church validly celebrates the Eucharist.
In this way, the Orthodox Church is excluded from this reckless and hasty generalization of “all other religions”, since we are separated from the Orthodox by the Primate of the Roman Pontiff, NOT THE EUCHARIST.
As for the Protestant Baptist religion, which is the one to which Mr.sapia, certainly the issue of Transubstantiation separates us from it, and it is not an “unbridgeable chasm” as Mr. Sapia. It is possible to save it, just believe in the words of Christ: “This IS my Body, This IS my Blood”, cf. Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:15-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
| The Catholic cannot deny that, according to appearances, the claim to substantiation seems ridiculous. No change can be detected in either the wafer or the wine after they have supposedly been transformed, through the unusual power of the priest, into the literal body and blood of Christ. So, How can you be sure that this “miracle” has occurred? As with many other things in Catholicism, security comes only by blindly accepting whatever the Church says.(Read in Catechism No. 1381) |
The only claim here is that of Mr. Sapia, who supposes that because he considers Transubstantiation “ridiculous”, then the undefined person like “the Catholic” HAS to also consider the same idea ridiculous.
What we should note is that mr. Sapia asks that there be a visible change, or detectable by one of the five senses, in the wafer of bread and in the consecrated wine after the transubstantiation is carried out. The matter simply leads to the question that mr. Sapia poses in his question, so that:
How can we be sure that transubstantiation occurred?
First: The first security is given to us by FAITH in the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the teaching of the Living and Present Church. All that may not give “security” to a Protestant like Mr. Sapia, but a sincere Catholic believes it by FAITH, by FAITH we sincerely believe, then by FAITH we can be sure that the miracle occurred.
Second: Mr. Sapia begins his paragraph by saying that “according to appearances” transubstantiation “seems ridiculous.”Obviously for the Catholic it is not a question of “appearances”, since for us the point is not what the sacred species “appear”, but rather what they SON after the consecration.
Third: The Catholics we believe that God is omnipotent, and that makes it easy to believe that the God who created the universe (Genesis 1), who turned water into wine (John 2, 7-11), (among many other miracles that satisfy Mr. Sapia’s human concern about “appearances”) CAN, that God, give us to eat His Body and His Blood in the form of Wheat Bread and Grape Wine. The faith in the promise of Christ (John 6:56), and the faith in the power of God (Luke 1:37, Matthew 19:26), they make us actually SURE that the miracle was performed.
Mr. Sapia takes advantage of the occasion to “conclude” that transubstantiation, “Among many other things, it comes from blindly accepting what the Church says.”
The quote from Catechism no.1381 refers to a phrase from Saint Cyril, and it is not a matter of faith to believe the words of Saint Cyril literally, although that is how Mr. Sapia.
But if the doctrine of Transubstantiation was based on “blindly accepting what the Church says”, then the aforementioned Church WOULD NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION about Transubstantiation. But since the Early Christian (Catholic) Church, the Fathers already taught the doctrine of the Real Presence in the form of Conversion [4], so that the Church, far from “tyrannizing” the faithful by ordering them to believe “blindly”, has given and gives numerous explanations about it.[5]
.
| The “miracle” of transubstantiation takes a backseat when one has the opportunity to see and “worship” a bleeding host. In the photo on the right we see a Catholic priest exposing a host that was found literally “bleeding.”Unfortunately, many believe it. Satan is very clever and sometimes it manages, in one way or another, to distract souls from the only one worthy of worship “in spirit and in truth…” (John 4:24) |
A posture worthy of the Spanish Inquisition of the 16th Century. Now it turns out that if a miracle occurs contrary to what Sapia believes, then… It must be the work of Satan!, since Sapia – we already know – cannot be wrong.
The aforementioned Inquisition fell into similar attitudes, and when it encountered – let alone a miracle – any proposal contrary to its ideas, then… Behind this is the devil…!!
Of course, Sapia does not prove that there is demonic activity in this case of a Eucharistic miracle… we only have his very personal opinion. And another point: Catholics believe that Christ is in the consecrated host., and it is Christ we worship when celebrating the Mass, so if Satan is behind this… He is encouraging the worship of Christ!
| Some Bible verses are offered to support this dogma, but the Catholic must accept the Church’s interpretation of it, even though common sense and proper exegesis would reject it. |
What a great example of humility Mr. Sapia!, deciding that “common sense” (of anyone), MUST reject the Catholic interpretation because he (Daniel Sapia), rejects it. The question is to see if it is the common sense, or of Protestant meaning, so as not to enlist general common sense within Protestant thought. Another thing, mr. Sapia claims that “adequate exegesis” rejects the Catholic interpretation, because his Protestant exegesis rejects it. With what credentials does Mr. Do you know that your exegesis is better or “more adequate” than Catholic exegesis from the Early Christian Church, through Scholastic Theology, and up to the present day?
As a Catholic, I am not going to be sure that Sapia’s exegesis is “the right one,” simply because Sapia pretends it is.
NOTA: What would common sense (of anyone) say about Sapia’s claim that his personal exegesis is “more adequate” than that of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Saint Augustine, Tertullian, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Thomas Aquinas, etc.?[6]
| The Romanists They know that to give hierarchy and validity to their “traditional” doctrines, there is nothing better than including some reference to one or more verses of the Holy Scriptures. In this way, they have the resource of affirming that the Word of God endorses their decrees, or what is better (or worse), they say that theirs is, neither more nor less, than respecting the “true” Divine Will. Especially when they claim to be the only ones qualified to interpret the Word of God. |
First of all, mr. Sapia uses the derogatory term “romanistas”, as if to detract from the correct definition of Catholics, which comes from the Greek Καθολικοσ, whose meaning is UNIVERSAL.An ignorant person could read the “romanistas”, and think that the Catholic Doctrine, and therefore the Transubstantiation, are a particular thing of Rome, capital of Italy, ignoring that the Transubstantiation is a CATHOLIC = UNIVERSAL Doctrine.
Secondly, Sapia attributes to the Church citing the Holy Scriptures as a “resource”, which allows them to affirm (Obviously Sapia considers the affirmation to be false), that the Word of God endorses its doctrines.
One problem: Protestants like Sapia DO THE SAME.When they talk about their doctrines they include references to one or several verses of the Holy Scriptures, in this way, they have the resource to affirm that the Word of God endorses their doctrines, thus pretending to respect the “true” Divine Will. The majority of Protestants affirm that any believer is capable of freely interpreting the Bible, (this is prohibited in 2Peter 1:20), and from there the particular doctrines come, (even if the aforementioned Protestant is illiterate, ignorant, uneducated, etc.)
Consequence: The Church has no choice: If the Catholic Church did not cite Scripture, it would be accused of being “unbiblical,” and a doctrine that had no scriptural basis would be immediately rejected. But if the Catholic Church DOES QUOTE Scripture, then it is also doing wrong, since it is “using the Scriptures as a resource to justify its teachings”…
| Referring to his imminent crucifixion, Christ said to the Jews in <>: “…the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world… Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (w. 51, 53). |
Catholicism takes these words literally and blames Protestantism for interpreting them symbolically. Christ also said: “I am the bread of life” (v. 35). Why not interpret it literally there, making it a loaf of bread? Is it more foolish to say that Christ is bread than to say that a piece of bread is Christ?The Bible should be taken literally whenever that is its meaning, but not when it means analogy or symbolism and when exaggerated attention to the letter would violate the logic or the laws of God.
Note that Mr. Sapia does not explain why the verses cited should be understood symbolically. Instead, and to evade for the moment the thorny difficulty of explaining the verses, He goes on to ask why we don’t do this or that with another verse.…wanting to give questions when I should be giving arguments.
| Jesus called for humanity to believe in him. He spoke to Nicodemus about believing, so that “whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and that believing in him would bring about a new birth. However, he did not mean a physical birth, but a spiritual birth, a fact that even Catholics recognize. He promised to give the woman at the well “living water” and even a “well of water” to spring into her (John 4:10-14), but he surely did not mean physical water. He told the Jews that whoever believes in Him, “rivers of living water will flow from within” (John 7:38), but he also did not mean a physical womb or actual physical rivers. |
Here mr. Sapia resorts to other verses not related – at least not directly – to the Eucharist, with the only useful purpose (for me) of demonstrating that there are verses whose meaning is symbolic. Another thing is to see if because there are verses with symbolic meaning, then those related to the Eucharist MUST be “symbolic” as well. That is what is not clear, and It is not achieved by showing verses where the meaning is symbolic.
| In John 6 Jesus said: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me will never hunger; and he who believes in me will never thirst.” (v. 35). It is clear that he did not mean that it was physical bread nor that those who believed in it would henceforth never need physical food or drink, but rather that they would never hunger or thirst spiritually again. Of course, He was speaking spiritually and illustrating his ideas with analogies of things familiar to everyone. So why should we interpret it literally moments later when it says we must “eat” his body and blood? |
Let’s point out: The “analogies” used by Christ, – in the unreal case that they were – were not “familiar to all.”At the end of the chapter it is recorded that many disciples abandoned him after his speech, which would not have happened if these “analogies” were REALLY familiar to them. To better understand this part, I place the text of Saint John 6:51-56, the most outstanding verses in this regard, with the original Greek words:
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats [FAGË=φαγη ] of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh [SARX=σαρξ ] for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh [SARKA= σαρκα ] to eat [FAGEIN= φαγειν ]?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you: unless you eat [FAGËTE=φαγητε ] the flesh [SARKA= σαρκα ] of the Son of Man and drink [PIËTE= πιητε ] his blood [AIMA= αιμα ], you have no life in you.
54 He who eats [TRÖGÖN= τρωγων ] my flesh [SARKA= σαρκα ] and drinks [PINÖN= πινων ] my blood [AIMA= αιμα ] has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 For my flesh [SARX= σαρξ] is true [ALËTHËS= αληθησ] food [BRÖSIS= βρωσισ ] and my blood [AIMA= αιμα ] is true [ALËTHËS= αληθησ ] drink [POSIS= ποσισ ].
56 He who eats [TRÖGÖN= τρωγων ] my flesh [SARKA= σαρκα ] and drinks [PINÖN= πινων ] my blood [AIMA= αιμα ] abides in me, and I in him.
Vocabulary about Words Greek Highlights from John 6:51-56:
fagë= (φαγη)= Action of eating, devouring, consuming.
sarx= (σαρξ)= Flesh, piece of flesh, body, living being, man.
fagein= (φαγειν)= Action of eating, devouring, consuming.
sarka= (σαρκα)= Flesh, cf.”sarkos”
fagëte= (φαγητε) = Action of eating, devouring, consuming.
piete= (πιητε)= Action of drinking, sipping, sucking.
aima= (αιμα)= Blood.
trogön= (τρωγων)= Eat, gnaw, chew, eat chewing.
pinion= (πινων)= Action of drinking, sipping, sucking.
alëthës= (αληθησ)= True, truthful, veridical, real.
brosis= (βρωσισ)= Food, nourishment, regarding the necessary nutrition.
posi= (ποσισ)= Drink, drinking, action of drinking.
Reference material: Greek-Spanish Manual Dictionary, by José M. Pabón S. de Urbina, Editorial Bibliograf _S.A.1969.
Verse by Verse:
51: Jesus is saying that He is the living bread (artos or dson), descended from heaven, and who the bread he gives us is his flesh (sarx), for the life of the world. If He is living bread come down from heaven and gives us His flesh as bread, He is giving “living bread” to us.
52: The Jews argued among themselves, wondering how it was possible that Christ gave them his own flesh (sarx) to eat (fagein).
53: Jesus is more explicit, saying that If we do not eat (fagëte), its flesh (sarx), we will not have life. Therefore eating its flesh gives us life. At this moment Jesus does not explain how he is going to give us his flesh (although he implies that in the form of bread, according to v. 51), he promises to give it to us and also explains that by eating it we will have eternal life. At the same time he gives the instruction to drink (piëte), his blood (aima), as a complement to the promise about his flesh. The expressions “eat the flesh” and “drink the blood” have no symbolic meaning in the Bible, other than as bloody persecution or destruction, cf. Psalm 26:2, Isaiah 9:20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3. It is impossible for the Protestant thesis to maintain that Jesus used that symbolism when commanding to eat his flesh and drink his blood; To support their thesis, they would have to find another biblical figure where the expressions “eat the blood and drink the blood” had a meaning more in line with the attitude of Christ.
54: This verse is like a repetition of v.53: He who eats (trögön) my flesh (sarka), and drinks (pinön) my blood (aima), has eternal life. Jesus uses expressions that are too realistic to be taken in a metaphorical sense.In fact, the words trogon and sarka They give a sense of “eating by chewing a piece of flesh.”It is extremely difficult to find a metaphorical meaning for the expression trogönIn fact, there is no Protestant thesis that satisfactorily explains what “symbolic meaning” the expression “chew, gnaw, or eat by chewing” has.
55: Jesus already gave the command to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but he has not explained why. This verse explains it: “For my flesh is true (alëthës) food (brösis), and my blood is true (alëthës) drink (posis). In this way it is impossible to accept a “symbolic” meaning. Christ says that his flesh is food according to the needs of true, real, true food, and that his blood is a true and real drink. Jesus’ expressions are too realistic to think of a metaphorical meaning.He has promised to give us his own flesh as a royal meal, and his own blood as a royal drink. How can you “draw out” a “symbolic” meaning?
56:Jesus insists on the fact that he remains in communion with those who eat (trögön) his flesh (sarx), and drink (pinön) his blood. With this he confirms that it is SERIOUS that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
| Is Jesus actually saying that in order to receive eternal life one must literally eat and drink his physical body and blood?Or is he saying that we should believe in him and is he using the eating and drinking analogy to illustrate the truth?It clearly says that believing grants eternal life. However, he says that only by eating it can one have life. Here is one irreconcilable contradiction, unless, of course, eating is synonymous with believing. |
Here, the separated brother appeals to logic and two sayings of Jesus: Believe in Him and do the double act of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Points out Mr. He knows that Christ is asking for two different things to have eternal life, and that “logically” they have to be ONE THING, both.
The problem is that Christ is not just using a word to illustrate the Truth.use the word trogön, and this means “gnaw or chew”, which is not synonymous with “believe” in biblical language. There is no “irreconcilable contradiction”, because if you want to keep Christ’s words realistic, you have to admit that he is setting (here) two conditions to have eternal life: One condition is to believe in Him, and another condition is to Eat His flesh and Drink His blood.
The “equivalence of words” of Mr. Sapia lacks strength as long as it is not supported by the Bible itself, so at the level of biblical language, Mr. Sapia should demonstrate that the expression “eat, gnaw, chew” is at some point used as a synonym for “believe”, and not on the basis of its questionable “logic”, but on the basis of biblical scrutiny.
It is easy, in order to bring water to your mill, to conclude that Any expression that speaks of means to achieve eternal life is “synonymous with believing.” It is the only way Protestants can maintain their theory of justification based on Sola Fide, because other means (The Eucharist, and with it the other sacraments), would break with the Protestant scheme of Sola Fide.
Sapia criticizes a doctrine that is not Catholic
Our Baptist interlocutor, following a “logic” that has already made several people laugh, says:
| Based on that crucial misinterpretation, the Catholic insists that the bread and wine is literally Christ. Let’s follow this to your logical conclusion. If Christ was speaking literally about his body, then he must have been speaking literally when he said, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger; and whoever believes in me will never thirst” (v. 35). |
Since Catholics claim to literally eat the physical body of Christ, they would never have to physically feel hungry or thirsty again, but it stands to reason that they would. However, if being “hunger and thirsty” are spiritual terms, then it must also be the eating of your body. Evidently, Christ is saying that those who believe in him receive eternal life and do not have to keep coming back to him for another installment.
Let’s say something about these errors:
First: Mr. Sapia, very kindly, offers to “think for Catholics”, telling us “what we believe”, which according to him is that receiving the Holy Eucharist (believing that it is really Christ), will solve us physical needs, and not spiritual needs. The error is that for Catholics, the Eucharist is not physical food (for the body), but spiritual food (for the soul). Mr. Sapia concludes that literally eating the body of Christ “must have” the consequence of suppressing physical hunger and thirst, but It doesn’t explain WHY that should be the consequence..He limits himself to giving it to us, without explaining it.
Second: I have already spoken about Transubstantiation with numerous Protestants, and the vast majority have come to have serious confusion with what it is. spiritual and with what it is symbolic.Mr. Sapia assumes that be hungry and thirsty It is a spiritual thing;but the spiritual is real, and the spiritual has meaning of its own. If “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” engender spiritual consequences (which they do in fact), then It is perfectly explained that the flesh (true food) and blood (true drink) of Christ are spiritual food. and not physical (vulgar) food.
Third: But contradictorily, Mr. Sapia concludes that it is “evident” that “eating of the body” simply means “believing in Christ.”So “eat from the body” It would no longer have spiritual meaning, but rather symbolic, since it is not attributed to the expression trogön a meaning in itself, but simply Sapia reduces it to a figure of the act of “believing”, without any immediate justification [7]
Then mr. Sapia has not yet decided whether the matter is spiritual or symbolic.
Room: Mr. Sapia mixes two different things, the first when Christ says that going to Him is what will take away our hunger and thirst (as long as we continue in Christ), and the second is “eating His body and drinking His blood.”Mr. Sapia says that “eating the body of Christ” would have the consequence of suppressing hunger, but Christ did not refer to the act of “eating his Body” as a means of suppressing hunger forever, but rather referred to the act of “going to Him.”So from that part of his comment, the esteemed Argentine starts mixing things up.
| To suggest that the body of Christ before the crucifixion has been created anew on Catholic altars to be offered again for sin is a clear contradiction of Scripture and logic. |
In this part I agree with Mr. Sapia, although he does not tell us who, or who, suggests that the body of Christ “before the Crucifixion” has been “created anew” on Catholic altars. That is certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches. This teaches that it is the glorified body of Jesus, as it is in heaven, that is made present in the form of bread. Then the Church teaches something very different from what Sapia suggests: The Church does not believe that it is about the Body before the Crucifixion, but about the Body after the Crucifixion and even the Ascension.
The New Covenant in Blood
| Finally, according to Luke’s account, instead of saying that the wine is the blood of the Lord, Jesus says that the cup is “the New Covenant in my blood.”Obviously the cup is not the New Covenant, but represents it;in the same way The wine is not the blood, but represents it. |
First: Mr. Sapia uses the formula used by Saint Luke (the same one used by Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). Both accounts of the Eucharist, in modern Bibles (Catholic and Protestant), translate the cup as “the New Covenant in my Blood.”It is curious that Mr. Sapia focuses precisely on the less literal formula about blood (apparently, in Spanish), which exists in the New Testament, and leaves aside the formulas used by Saint Matthew (Matthew 26:26-28), and by Saint Mark (Mark 14:22-24), where most Spanish Bibles translate as “my blood”, in an even more literal context than the translation of Saint Luke.
Second: The text cited from Saint Luke, is the following:
On the other hand, the text of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew is:
The meaning that the Catholic Church gives to these words is: “The content of this Chalice is my Blood, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins”.The literality is inescapable. Christ is declaring to offer His Royal Body and His Royal Blood to His disciples.
| We repeat: If Christ is speaking physically of his body and blood in John 6, then those who eat of him They will never die physically. |
We will also repeat: Catholic doctrine does not teach that whoever eats the Eucharist does not die “physically”.Christ NEVER promised to give eternal earthly life to ANYONE.
| If he did not mean that eating it would prevent physical death, then nor did he refer to physically eating it. It is evident that he is speaking in spiritual sense throughout the entire chapter, as well as in other parts. |
First: Mr. Sapia insists on his error, thinking about “physical food”, when we have already seen that for the Catholic, the Eucharist is food for the spirit, not the body.
Second: Says mr. He knows that Christ speaks in a “spiritual sense.”The problem is that the spiritual sense as we Catholics see it is not synonymous with “symbolic”, as seems to be the case for Protestants. For us, the spiritual meaning of Jesus’ words lies in the fact that His Body and Blood are spiritual foodThey feed our soul, not our body. Saying that Jesus spoke in a “spiritual sense” does not deny Transubstantiation, not even from the Catholic point of view.
| When Jesus said.”I am the light of the world; whoever follows me will not walk in darkness” (John 8:12), he was not speaking of physical light but of spiritual light, which those who believe in him receive, in contrast to the spiritual darkness in which the world dwells. |
The point is that we Catholics apply that reasoning to the words of Christ in the institution of the Eucharist. Jesus was not talking about physical food, but about spiritual food, true food and true drink for the soul. That Jesus was referring to spiritual food is confirmed by the words of John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no use. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
| In John 6, Christ was speaking to the crowd. Therefore, We know that, as always, he was speaking to them in parables, wearing figurative and spiritual language, not literal and physical. |
But Christ explained his parables. In fact when his words were understood literally (and were actually symbolic), Christ explained them, and in matters much less important than this, see John 3:3-5, Matthew 16:6-12, John 2:19-21, John 11:11-14, etc. Furthermore, is Sapia serious when he says that Christ spoke SIEMPRE in parables?
Let’s look at the following passage from the Holy Bible:
«Simon, Simon!Behold, Satan has requested the power to sift you like wheat; But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail. And you, when you have returned, confirm your brothers. He said, “Lord, I am willing to go with you to prison and death.”But he said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know me.”
Luke 22:32-34
Did Jesus speak HERE “in parables”???Obviously not, Christ was referring to a real rooster already three times real in which Peter would deny it, as recorded in the Gospel: Luke 22:56-62, John 18:17-27, Mark 14:66-72, Matthew 26:69-75.
Did Jesus speak “in parables” when he claimed to be the Messiah?Did he speak in Parables when he promised the coming of the Holy Spirit?If the “parable” was that Jesus’ words regarding the Eucharist are symbolic, then he should have explained it, especially knowing that as a consequence of his words he would be worshiped in the form of Pan. What kind of Omniscient God would Christ be, if he did not avoid such a serious error with a simple explanation?
| For a Jew, eating blood was against the law, and still is (Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:10, 11; etc.), and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the apostles also strongly recommended to Gentile believers, as something “necessary”, that they abstain “from blood” (Acts 15:28, 29). |
But The Apostles, after accepting Christ, were no longer Jews by religion. They were Christians. And we Christians are no longer governed by the Old Law regarding food. Mr. Sapia suggests that Christ “surely would not require anyone to drink his blood,” but the argument is invalid, because Jesus DOES DEMAND IT (John 6:53). It is true that abstaining from blood can mean “not eating blood”, but Saint Paul says: “For everything that God has created is good and no food that is eaten with thanksgiving is to be rejected.” (1Timothy 4:4). Therefore the quote from Acts 15:28-29 cannot be a prescription about not eating blood, because it would be contradicting Saint Paul.
Jehovah’s Witnesses use, like Sapia, cites Acts 15:28-29 to justify his beliefs that God forbids eating blood, except that Sapia only uses it to talk about the Eucharist and not about any other type of blood other than that of Christ.
Mr. Sapia… Should we understand that you – very obediently – DO NOT EAT ANY BLOOD??Don’t you eat flesh with blood, blood sausages, or something similar?
The command of Acts 15:28-29 refers to four things: fornication, things defiled by idols, strangled animals, and blood, a context very far removed from the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist;and a temporary mandate, while subjection to the Mosaic Law is gradually lost. The Decalogue, not to go any further, prohibits contamination of idolatry and fornication, but it does not prohibit eating strangled animals or eating blood..And Jesus said that to enter Life, we must fulfill these commandments (Matthew 19:17-18), without subjecting ourselves to the enormous series of Mosaic prescriptions given from Exodus to Deuteronomy.
| And eating his physical body would be cannibalism, an act he would not condone, much less recommend. |
Go into crude definitions does not help clarify the issue: Christ sacrificed himself for us, will we say that that was SUICIDE???Christ said that he did not come to bring peace but the sword. Are we going to say that this was an incitement to violence???It is cannibalism to eat the flesh of man (anthropophagy), but the flesh of Christ is not simple human flesh… it is divine food.
| The Catholic rests his entire case on the appeal that he is interpreting Christ literally. |
Mr. Sapia rushes a little. As Catholics, the strongest point in our favor is that we are taking Christ’s words literally, but there are other arguments that favor the Catholic position.(We can see it in Some interesting considerations about the Eucharist)
| But when Christ became man, he voluntarily submitted to certain limitations. A physical body takes up space and can therefore only be in one place at a time. |
Catholic doctrine also studies this point, and explains it as follows:
The presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, under such small dimensions and in so many places at the same time, seems to pose two apparent difficulties: How can a human body be present in such a small space?, and How can a human body be in several places at the same time?These difficulties, of course, are only apparent. God does it, then it can be done.
It must be remembered that He is the author of nature, the master and lord of creation. The physical laws of the universe were established by God, and He can suspend their action if He wishes, without costing an effort to His infinite power. It is true that in human experience each body has what we call “extension”, it must occupy a certain space. In our experience, a body must be in only space at the same time. Multilocation (being in several places simultaneously) is unknown to us. It is logical, therefore, to say that a body without extension in space, or occupying several places at the same time, is a physical impossibility;impossible, that is, for physical laws. But these phenomena are not metaphysically impossible; That is, there is no inherent contradiction in the idea of a body without extension, or in the idea of multilocation. An inherent contradiction would make them absolutely impossible, as would be, for example, the idea of a square circle, which is a contradiction in terms.
Perhaps this puts us too much in the field of philosophy. But, the points that we are interested in making clear are: first, that Jesus is not present in the miniature Eucharist. It is there in the fullness of His glorified Person, in a spiritualized way, without extension or space. It has no height, width or thickness. The second point is that Jesus does not multiply, so that there are many Jesuses; Nor is it divided between the different hosts. There is only one Jesus, complete and undivided. His multilocation is not the result of multiplications or divisions, but of the suspension of the law of space for his sacred body. It is as if He were in one place, and all parts of the space were drawn to Him. It is easy to see the reason why the Eucharist is called and is the sacrament of unity. When we take communion-and with us our companions from around the world-we are where He is. Space has dissolved for us, and together we are one in Christ. Just as the substance of water is in a droplet, or in the entire ocean, so the substance of the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ are present in every host and in every quantity of wine contained in the chalices of the whole world.
Consultation Material: Faith Explained, by Leo J. Trese. Rialp Editions. SA1983.
| Christians believe in this promise, but no one imagines that Christ is physically present in one place at the same time at all, because that would mean it could be seen, but this is not so. |
In fact The physical presence of Christ does not depend on whether we can SEE Him or not., mr. Sapia forgets that belief in Transubstantiation implies the presence of Christ under the appearances of Bread and Wine.
| To suggest that millions of wafers are each the entire physical body of Christ is to abandon reality and accept a fantasy. |
If we follow mr. Sapia, then we must admit that Christ is not perfect, since he founded a Church that from Antiquity until today believes in a “fantasy.”The explanation about the substance is useful to clarify this point. Christ is not divided, neither is his substance. And then Christ is not omnipotent either., since it would be “fanciful” to assume that it CAN be present on millions of wafers at the same time.
The God of Christians is Omniscient and Perfect. If mr. Sapia simply doesn’t believe it… well that will be his problem.
| The language Christ used at the Last Supper also provides no support for transubstantiation: “The Lord Jesus…took bread…and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). He wants Christians to remember his death on the cross and to partake of the bread and wine as a reminder of it. |
Mr. Sapia once again avoids the problem of explaining why the expressions “it is my body”, “it is my blood”, have a symbolic meaning;To avoid this issue it is assumed that Christ only wishes to establish a Reminder Act.
However, the support for Transubstantiation is overwhelming – although Sapia denies it. Christ takes bread and declares that it is His Body, then there is substance of the bread but of the Body of Christ. Christ declares that what is in the chalice is his blood, when moments before it was wine. Therefore there is no longer the substance of wine, but of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation is clearly contained in the words of Christ.
| Note the words: “This is my body.”Jesus did not say that one day the pieces of bread would become his body through the alleged miraculous power of transubstantiation exercised by Catholic priests, but rather that the bread, at that moment was (represented) his body. |
Other conclusion without explanations.
Sapia says that Jesus used the Greek verb IS (estin=εστιν), as a synonym for “represent”, or allusion to a “representation” of His Body. If Christ wanted to lend himself to the personal interpretation of Mr. Sapia, there were words to give the “symbolic” meaning intended by Sapia and other Protestants, for example, the word “omoiömati”=ομοιωματι, used in Romans 1:23.
What if a Catholic says: Jesus said that bread, at that moment, WAS (not represented) His Body?
| No one could have interpreted that statement literally, because he was sitting there in his physical body and holding the bread in his hands. It is evident that the bread was symbolic. |
That is, the fact that Jesus was present “limited” His power to feed His Body to the Apostles (!!!!) Is the bread also “symbolic” in the powerful quote from 1 Corinthians 10:16?The quote says: “And the bread that we break, is it not communion with the body of Christ?” Is it possible to have “communion” with a symbol, or for a “symbol” to be a “communion”????
| We can be sure that None of Christ’s disciples imagined that the bread he held was his literal body. That that could be his literal body and at the same time Christ could be there in his literal body was impossible. |
As a result of several conversations that I have had with Daniel Sapia, I have noticed a typical attitude of his: That of trying to know the thoughts and feelings of other people. In this case, Sapia “is sure” that the Apostles “did not imagine” something that goes against their personal beliefs, because Sapia is simply right; It is unthinkable that the Apostles would contradict it… Remarkable argument!
Sapia then insists that it is impossible for Christ (King and Creator of the Universe), suspend the action of physical laws. We conclude that Sapia does not believe in an Omnipotent God: the fish dies through the mouth.
| Such a fantasy did not enter the minds of those present and they didn’t invent it until much later. Certainly Christ’s words conveyed no such thing, nor do we have any reason to believe that the disciples derived such a meaning from them. |
I would like to have the macrotemporal telepathy of Mr. Sapia, which lets you know that
On its website, Sapia dedicates a section to giving advice to Protestants to dialogue with Catholics, and one piece of advice it gives is:
Do not use disparaging or disqualifying opinions regarding what the other believes.
Now, isn’t it disparaging and disqualifying to call Transubstantiation and a Eucharistic Miracle “fantasy”, “curia trap”, “the work of Satan’s craftsman”?
And to top it off, the Baptist “mind reader” commits a historical error when he states that Transubstantiation “was invented much later”, since from the first centuries of Christianity, numerous Fathers of the Church maintained this Christian truth.[6]
With all this, we have every reason to think that the Apostles DID DERIVE such meaning from the Words of Christ.
| A news article published in the Zenit agency reports on the theft suffered by a person who was carrying a consecrated host in his wallet to be administered to a sick person unable to leave his house. |
The Redeemer of humanity was “in the lady’s purse…”. This would really be laughable if there weren’t souls on the path to perdition behind it. It is honestly difficult to understand how there are people who can believe, practice and defend it.
In fact, the doctrine also explains the permanence of the Real Presence.:The real presence ends when the sacred species ends. Obviously Christ is not limited to the “lady’s purse.”
Sapia forgets to explain why there is souls on the path of perdition due to the belief in Transubstantiation;although I suppose we will appreciate it as an honest opinion.
To Sapia it’s hard to understand that Catholics believe, practice, and defend this doctrine. In reality, no more than we Catholics can be surprised that there are those who do not believe it, do not practice it and do not defend it. Pride is human, certainly, and it is normal that there are people who “do not understand” that there are those who think differently than them. To go no further, Atheists honestly find it difficult to understand how there are people who believe in God.This difficulty in understanding is not new, mr. Sapia. If youunderstood the matter, then he would be a Catholic.
| This “blood” is of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. What does this mean?Well, what This cup represents the blood (life) of Christ that will be poured out (through His death on the cross) for many, for the remission of sins. |
Let’s get to the point: Jesus Christ did not say that the cup “represents” the blood, this is what Sapia says.The difference is that the literal interpretation is supported by early Christian doctrines, Fathers of the Church, and approximately twenty centuries of existence.
Sapia is supported by Berengar (11th century, who later accepted the royal presence), and the reformers (Wicclef and Huss, later Luther, Calvin, Zwingli), and unfortunately, as not even the reformers agreed on the Eucharist; Sapia’s sad support is approximately five centuries of confusion and severe disagreements regarding the Eucharist.
| By mentioning “the shed blood” Christ is not referring to the fluid composed of blood cells, platelets and plasma, but is referring to HIS LIFE GIVEN IN THE CRUCIFIXION, symbolically represented by the shedding of blood. |
Sapia assumes that Christ “symbolizes” his Crucifixion through the “shedding of blood”, but if we are symbolists, this is an ERROR: Christ did not “shed blood” to “symbolize” his Crucifixion. He used WINE, not blood, and did not spill it but gave it to drink. In biblical language, as we have already mentioned, wine is not a natural symbol of blood. How would you explain that “drinking wine” is a figure for “shedding blood”?
I don’t even know what to think of what Mr. Sapia: What I believe is that Christ shed His blood (in the Flagellation, crowning with thorns, Calvary and crucifixion), to effect His sacrifice, not to “symbolize” Him.
Information: In v.28, Christ uses the word “ekjynomenon”=εκχυνομενον, conjugation of “ekjeo”, which means “to pour out, pour out, consecrate or give oneself.”
| Therefore, It would not make the slightest sense to suppose that Christ is offering REAL BLOOD. in the cup of the new covenant. |
Well, it’s clear that for Protestants has “not the slightest meaning.”For Catholics it does, its blood seals the New Covenant. It is saving blood, redeeming blood, that He offers us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
| But a miracle must be something that can be observed (the lame walk, the blind see, the storm calms instantly, the dead come back to life in response to a command, etc.), otherwise no one can know that it has happened, and therefore no one can glorify God for it. |
For us Catholics it is very reckless to demand from God the continuous presence of miracles.
However, there are miracles related to the Eucharist and the consecrated host.
And again, the separated brother poses things in such a way that the Church has no way out: -If there is no Visible Miracle, then the doctrine is false and fantastic.-But if a Visible Miracle occurs… Then it is the work of the clever Satan…!We already saw it above.
It doesn’t matter how or why; The Church is wrong no matter what happens, because “Sapia has spoken and the case is closed…“.
Here Sapia’s article gives space to comments from another person (Fernando Saraví). For this reason, and due to the extension of the topic discussed, the response continues in a Second Part.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
– Click HERE to go to Part Two
– \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
References:
[1] What was stated can be verified directly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
| 154 It is only possible to believe through the grace and interior help of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. It is not contrary to either the freedom or the intelligence of man to place trust in God and adhere to the truths revealed by him. In human relationships it is no longer contrary to our own dignity to believe what other people tell us about themselves and their intentions, and to trust their promises (as, for example, when a man and a woman get married), in order to enter into mutual communion. Therefore, it is even less contrary to our dignity “to present by faith the full submission of our intelligence and our will to the God who reveals” (Vatican Church I: DS 3008) and thus enter into intimate communion with Him. 613 The death of Christ is both the paschal sacrifice that brings about the definitive redemption of men (cf. 1 Cor 5:7; Jn 8:34–36) through the “lamb who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29; cf. 1 Pet 1:19) and the sacrifice of the New Covenant (cf. 1 Cor 11:25) that returns man to communion with God (cf. Ex 24, 8) reconciling him to Him through “the blood shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt 26, 28; cf. Lev 16, 15-16). 1489 Return to the communion with God, after having lost it through sin, is a movement that is born from the grace of God, rich in mercy and desirous of the salvation of men. It is necessary ask this precious gift for yourself and for others. 259 The entire divine economy, a work at once common and personal, makes known the property of the divine persons and their unique nature. So, The entire Christian life is communion with each of the divine persons, without separating them in any way. He who gives glory to the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; He who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him (cf. Jn 6:44) and the Spirit moves him (cf. Rom 8:14). 426 “At the center of catechesis we find essentially a Person, that of Jesus of Nazareth, Only Begotten of the Father, who has suffered and died for us and who now, resurrected, lives forever with us… Catechizing is… discovering in the Person of Christ the eternal plan of God… It is about seeking to understand the meaning of the gestures and words of Christ, the signs performed by Himself” (CT 5). The purpose of catechesis: “to lead to communion with Jesus Christ: only He can lead us to the love of the Father in the Spirit and make us participate in the life of the Holy Trinity.” (ibid.). 732 On this day the Holy Trinity is fully revealed. From that day on, the Kingdom announced by Christ is open to all who believe in Him: in the humility of the flesh and in faith, they already participate in the Communion of the Holy Trinity. With his coming, which does not cease, the Holy Spirit brings the world into the “last times”, the time of the Church, the Kingdom already inherited, but not yet consummated: 737 The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is carried out in the Church, the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This joint mission now associates the faithful of Christ in their Communion with the Father in the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit prepares men, prevents them by his grace, to attract them to Christ. He shows them the risen Lord, reminds them of his word and opens their minds to understand his Death and Resurrection.He makes the Mystery of Christ present to them, especially in the Eucharist to reconcile them, to lead them to Communion with God, so that they bear “much fruit” (Jn 15, 5. 8. 16). 850 The origin and purpose of the mission. The missionary mandate of the Lord has its ultimate source in the eternal love of the Holy Trinity: “The pilgrim Church is, by its very nature, missionary, since it has its origin in the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit according to the plan of God the Father” (AG 2). The ultimate goal of the mission is none other than to make men participate in the communion that exists between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love. (cf John Paul II, RM 23). |
[2] To demonstrate that the Catholic Church recognizes that the Eastern Churches validly celebrate the Eucharist, I rely on the following links:
Visit to His Beatitude Cristódulos, Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, His Holiness John Paul II, Friday, May 4, 2001
Unitatis Redintegratio n.15, decree of the Second Vatican Council
[3] To clarify the point, I quote below the text of the Council of Trent, and of the Plenary Council of Latin America (along with the numerals cited by the latter):
Dog.11. If anyone says that faith alone is sufficient preparation to receive the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And so that such a great sacrament is not received unworthily and, therefore, to death and condemnation, the same holy Council establishes and declares that those who are burdened with the conscience of mortal sin, no matter how contrite they consider themselves, must necessarily make prior sacramental confession, easy to confess.But if anyone attempts to teach, preach or persistently affirm, or even publicly dispute to defend the contrary, he shall be excommunicated for the same fact [cf.880]. Available on the Internet: http://www.mercaba.org/CONCILIOS/trento05.htm
- Therefore, as you read those terrible words of the Apostle (1 Cor. Ecclesiastical custom declares, says the Council of Trent, that this indispensable proof consists in that no one, with consciousness of mortal sin, no matter how contrite he may think he is, approaches the Holy Eucharist without having confessed sacramentally: and this the Holy Council decreed to be perpetually observed by all Christians, even the priests who have the duty to celebrate every day;unless they absolutely lack a confessor.And if, urged by necessity, any priest (in advance of an act of perfect contrition that must be sought with great effort) celebrates without having confessed, let him do so as soon as possible” (405). This obligation to confess as soon as possible contains a true precept, and not just advice, and the contrary sentence was condemned by Alexander VII (406). Available on the Internet: http://www.multimedios.org/docs/d000021/p000040.htm#r404
- Trid Conc..sess.13. chap.7 of Euch.
- Prop. 38 damn.die March 18, 1666.
[4] The Fathers of the Church who deal with the point observe expressions about a CONVERSION, the following examples are given:
The expression “metaballein=μεταβαλλειν“, they use it Saint Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
The expression “metapoiein=μεταποιειν“, they use it Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint John Damascene.
The expression “metastoijeioyn=μεταστοιχειουν“uses it Saint Gregory of Nyssa.The expression “metarrythmidsein=μεταρρυθμιδσειν“is used by Saint John Chrysostom.The expression “metaskeyadsein=μετασκευαδσειν“is also used by Saint John Chrysostom.The latin parents use the expressions “convertere, mutare“.
[5] The Catechism of the Catholic Church is only ONE of many means by which the Catholic Magisterium, or Catholic Apologists, explain, study, and expound the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If someone believes “blindly” in what is proposed by the Magisterium, it will certainly not be due to LACK of means to believe by faith and not due to blindness. If someone is in that deplorable situation, it is not because the Church wants them to believe “blindly”, but because the “blind” person in question DOES NOT OPEN THEIR EYES.
Below I provide several hyperlinks to pages that deal with, expose and explain the issue of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, so that those who feel lacking in explanations can resort to them freely, especially if they believe (wrongly) that they depend on believing “blindly” in what the Magisterium says:
http://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/SACRAMENTOS/EUCARISTIA/624-7.htm
http://corazones.org/sacramentos/eucaristia/a_eucaristia.htm
[6] Throughout his article, Sapia gives us a sample of his “biblical exegesis” on the subject, with which we saw – very surprised – that Sapia does not seem to believe in an Omnipotent and Perfect God.
This is most common in those who cannot respond to the strongest Catholic arguments in favor of Transubstantiation, as set out in the Appendix of this answer, or are even unaware of them. PROPER exegesis, if belonging to Protestants, would have to respond to those Catholic arguments, which includes EXPOSING THEM (prior knowledge), and REFUTING THEM.Sapia does neither;so that his exegesis is either incomplete or wrong, in both cases, it cannot be “adequate.”
Therefore, I will expose a little of the exegesis of the Fathers of the Church, among ancient teachers and theologians, up to Saint Thomas, on the Real Presence, and after seriously analyzing the thought of those great men, we will be able to fairly consider WHAT is the appropriate exegesis, that is, with knowledge of the facts, and not simply with a gratuitous statement from Mr. Sapia:
On the Real Presence of Christ in the EucharistThe Antenicene Fathers We owe the oldest testimony of Tradition that speaks clearly in favor of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to Saint Ignatius of Antioch (around 107 AD). This holy father speaks to us about the Docets: “They stay away from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not want to confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh who suffered for our sins and was resurrected by the kindness of the Father (Smyrn.7, 1).In Philad 4, says: “Be careful not to celebrate more than one Eucharist, because there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and there is only one chalice for the gathering of his blood.“. Saint Justin Martyr (around 165 AD), presents in his first Apology a description of the Eucharistic solemnity in the Early Church (c. 65) and says, referring to the Eucharistic meal: “We do not receive these delicacies as if they were ordinary bread and ordinary drink, but, just as Jesus Christ our Savior became flesh through the Word of God and took flesh and blood to save us, so we have also been taught that the delicacy converted into the Eucharist by the words of a prayer coming from Him (Jesus) – a delicacy on which the flesh and blood feed as we transform it – is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate for us.” (66, 2). Saint Justin establishes a parallel between the consecration of the Eucharist and the mystery of the Incarnation. The result, both of the Eucharist and of the Incarnation, is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. As proof, Saint Justin presents the words of the institution of the Eucharist, “that the apostles have transmitted in the memoirs written by them and that are called Gospels“. Saint Irenaeus of Lyon (around 202 AD) testifies that “the bread on which Thanksgiving is made is the Body of the Lord;and the chalice [is the chalice] of his blood“, (Adv.haer. IV 18, 4). Christ”He declared that that chalice from creation was his own blood (aima idion), which he infuses into our blood;and he assured that that bread from creation was his own body (idion söma), with which He strengthens our bodies (ib. v. 2, 2). Our flesh “is fed with the body and blood of Christ, and then becomes a member of Christ.”“This way”sand makes it capable of receiving the gift of God, which consists of eternal life” (ib. V 2, 3). “How can they [the Gnostics] affirm that the flesh will suffer destruction and will have no participation in life, if that flesh feeds on the body and blood of the Lord” (ib. IV 18, 5).We see then that Saint Irenaeus bases the fact of the resurrection of the flesh on the real perception of the body and blood of the Lord. Origins of Alexandria, in his treatise Against Celsum VIII 33: “But we, who give thanks to the Maker of the universe, eat the offered bread with thanksgiving and prayer for benefits;and those breads, through prayer, have become a certain holy body that sanctifies all those who taste it with an intelligent sense”; cf. In Num. hom. 7, 2; In Ex. hom. 13, 3; In Matth. comment. ser. 85. Saint Cyprian (around 258 AD), refers to the Eucharist that petition of the Lord’s Prayer in which the daily bread is requested, and makes the following comment: “Qui corpus eius contigimus”, and assures that “All those who attain their body and receive the Eucharist, according to the law of the community, have eternal life, according to what is said in John 6:51.“(From Dominican Orat.18). In a parallel, he compares the act of drinking the blood of Christ when receiving the Eucharist, with the act of shedding blood in martyrdom. And this parallel requires that the first fact be understood in the same real sense that the second has (Ep.58, 1; Ep.63, 15). The Post-Nicene Fathers Among the post-Nicene Fathers they stand out in a special way as witnesses of the Church’s faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist;among the Greeks: Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (4th.and 5th. Cat. Myst.), Saint John Chrysostom, “doctor of the Eucharist”, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint John Damascene (De Fide orth. IV 13);among Latinos: Saint Hilary of Potiers (From Trin. VIII 14) and Saint Ambrose (Of sacr. IV 4-7; From myst.8s), who constituted a decisive authority for the Eucharistic doctrine of scholastic theology. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem says: “On one occasion, with a mere indication from Him, He turned water into wine during the wedding at Cana in Galilee. Is it not worth believing that He turns wine into His blood?“(Cat. Myst.4, 2). The Eucharistic Doctrine of Saint Augustine It is interpreted in an exclusively spiritual sense by most Protestant historians of Christian dogma. But this holy doctor, despite his predilection for symbolic interpretation, does not deny the real presence. Referring to the words of the institution, he says: “The bread that you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ;that chalice, or rather the contents of the chalice, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ“, (Sermo 227). In Enarr.in Ps.33, sermo I 10: “Christ held himself in his own hands when he said, as he offered his Body to his disciples: This is my Body.“. The testimony of the Fathers is corroborated by the ancient Christian liturgies, in which, in the epiclesis, the Logos or the Holy Spirit is invoked so that “turn the bread into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ“(Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in Cat. Myst.5, 27). Saint Thomas (Scholastic Theology) proves the appropriateness of royal presence by: a) The perfection of the New Covenant and the consequent elevation that its sacrifice must have above the sacrifice of the Old Testament. b) The love of Christ for men, which drives the Lord to be close to them bodily. c) Perfection in faith, which in the Eucharist not only extends to divinity, but also to the humanity of Christ invisibly present (Theological Summa III, 75, 1)
|
[7] This is a consequence of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, according to which, faith alone is enough to justify and save oneself. Therefore, to suppose that works, sacraments, alms, prayers, intercessions, etc., serve to cooperate in justification, completely clashes with his theory. We then resort to disqualifying texts that disagree with Sola Fide, such as some Deuterocanonicals, or to assign these teachings a symbolic meaning. In this case, Christ says in John 6 that He who eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life.
For Protestantism this cannot be literal, since a meaning is required that does not somehow destroy its theory of justification.
The simplicity of Mr. Sapia in avoiding the (many) difficulties that exist in reconciling the Gospel with symbolic interpretation, demonstrates that his objective is not to “give the appropriate exegesis”, but to deflect the blow in another direction than Sola Fide.That is why for Sapia it is “evident” a priori, that Christ speaks of “synonyms” as Sapia suggests they are “eating the flesh and drinking the blood”, and “believing”.
Author: Jesús Hernández
Source: Luxdomini.com
