![\"JesusEucharist2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/12\/JesusEucharist2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(2-4-05; abridged and very slightly edited \/ added to otherwise, on 12-7-17)<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
This is drawn from what was originally a very extensive dialogue with a friendly and learned Reformed Protestant, Alastair Roberts. At first, he himself asked me to respond to a series that he wrote on the topic. I was happy to oblige. I feel, however, that the two-part dialogue (see parts one <\/a>\/ two<\/a>,\u00a0via Internet Archive) is far<\/em> too long and involved for the vast majority of readers to be willing to follow. For the few who are<\/em> willing and interested, I have provided the old links. Here, I have retained what I feel is the heart and substance of my comments, stimulated by a worthy and ecumenical dialogical opponent. That is still quite long enough, as it is!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Catholics don\u2019t have to make the dichotomous choice of believing that the Eucharist is real, but not also a sign or symbol as well, just as St. Augustine held. I\u2019ve written about this false dichotomy in my paper, \u201cSt. Augustine\u2019s Belief in the Real Presence\u201d [see the later revised version<\/a>].<\/p>\n What we need to appreciate is that reality dwells in the realm of symbols and symbols dwell in the realm of reality. Symbols and reality depend upon each other for existence.<\/p>\n I agree. In my paper just-mentioned, I wrote:<\/p>\n I claimed [as a Protestant] that St. Augustine . . . adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist. I based this on his oft-stated notion of the sacrament as\u00a0symbol<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0sign<\/i>. I failed to realize, however, that I was arbitrarily creating a false, logically unnecessary dichotomy between the sign and the reality of the Eucharist, for St. Augustine \u2014 when all his remarks on the subject are taken into account \u2014 clearly accepted the Real Presence. The Eucharist \u2014 for Augustine, and objectively speaking \u2014 is both sign and reality. There simply is no contradiction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A cursory glance at Scripture confirms this general principle. For instance, Jesus refers to the\u00a0sign of Jonah<\/i>, comparing the prophet Jonah\u2019s three days and nights in the belly of the fish to His own burial in the earth (Mt 12:38-40). In this case, both events, although described as\u00a0signs<\/i>, were quite real indeed. Jesus also uses the terminology of\u00a0sign<\/i>\u00a0in connection with His Second Coming (Mt 24:30-31), which is believed by all Christians to be a literal event, and not symbolic only.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . St. Augustine\u2019s symbolic language can be synthesized with his \u201crealistic\u201d language, because realism can co-exist with symbol while retaining its realism . . . symbolic language can also (and indeed often does in Augustine) refer to other, more communal aspects of the Eucharist which complement (but are not contrary to) the \u201cReal Presence\u201d aspect of it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . The simple fact of the matter is that Augustine speaks in both ways. But\u00a0we\u00a0<\/i>can harmonize them as complementary, not contradictory, because Catholics, like Augustine himself, tend to think in terms of \u201cboth\/and\u201d rather than the dichotomous \u201ceither\/or\u201d prevalent in Protestantism. Thus, when some Augustinian symbolic Eucharistic utterance is found, it is seized upon as \u201cproof\u201d that he thereby denied the Real Presence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is neither logically compelling, nor scholarly, since there are many of his statements which clearly indicate that he held to the literal, Real physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0the Sacrifice of the Mass,\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0the priesthood, which makes no sense.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The whole idea of sacramentology can be summed up as: \u201cmatter can convey grace.\u201d That can in turn be paraphrased as \u201cnature (including sensory data) can and does convey grace.\u201d Put that way, obviously a nature vs. grace dichotomy is precluded. It would seem that the Incarnation would have put that false dichotomy to rest in the first place (which is why we see the Eucharist as an \u201cextension\u201d of the Incarnation).<\/p>\n If matter can convey grace, then it (in the sacrament) is being used as a channel or medium for that purpose. Scripture indicates that grace (in one definition of it, anyway) is a thing which can be \u201cdistributed,\u201d if you will, by God. Thus, linguist W. E. Vine wrote:<\/p>\n . . . in another objective sense, the effect of grace, the spiritual state of those who have experienced its exercise, whether (1) a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18, or (2) a proof thereof in practical effects, deeds of grace, e.g., 1 Cor. 16:3 . . .; 2 Cor. 8:6,19 . . . the power and equipment for ministry, e.g., Rom. 1:5; 12:6; 15:15; 1 Cor. 3:10; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:2,7 . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/i>, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940, vol. 2, 170, \u201cGrace\u201d \/ \u201cCharis\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Many biblical instances of sacramental occurrences had nothing to do with the divinely instituted symbology of the Last Supper \/ Eucharist, but illustrate and confirm this understanding of matter conveying grace: Elisha\u2019s bones causing a man to be raised from the dead (2 Ki 13:20-21), Paul\u2019s handkerchief (Acts 19:11-12) and Peter\u2019s shadow (Acts 5:15-16) healing people, and Elijah\u2019s mantle causing the Jordan River to part (2 Ki 2:11-14). These also constitute excellent, explicit biblical evidence for relics. Very un-Protestant, yet very biblical . . .<\/p>\n The old Protestant objection is that the Mass is a form of magic, with the priest uttering mysteriously powerful words to make happen what Catholics believe happens. In fact, the term\u00a0hocus pocus<\/i>\u00a0came from the Latin words of consecration:\u00a0hoc est enim corpus<\/i>\u00a0(\u201cthis is My Body\u201d). But the Mass is not \u201cmagic\u201d at all. Magic (in the occultic, not entertainment, sleight-of-hand sense) means that the person performing the magic has an intrinsic power to perform something in and of himself.<\/p>\n But in the Mass, the priest is merely an\u00a0alter Christus<\/i>. He is representing the person of Jesus at the Last Supper, following the words that He taught us to say (encapsulated in a worship and liturgical ritual known as the Mass). It is Jesus Who is performing the eucharistic miracle. The priest is merely a channel. God causes the miracle to occur, not mere words (just as God\u2019s grace causes a conversion; not the words of the repentant sinner; citing John 3:16 or some kind of \u201csinner\u2019s prayer\u201d).<\/p>\n The words of consecration (repeating our Lord\u2019s words at the Last Supper) merely give a particular time when the faithful know that the miracle has occurred. After all, if one believes in a substantial presence of Jesus at some point during the liturgy, then it is altogether reasonable to posit at which point the miracle occurs (so the worshipers can worship Jesus as substantially present; hence we bow our heads at the consecration because Jesus is truly, substantially there).<\/p>\n Jesus Christ is truly, substantially, actually present: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. That\u2019s why we believe that the Mass is a Sacrifice, and re-presents the one sacrifice at Calvary on the Cross (transcending time and space, which is part of the miracle). That\u2019s why we bow our heads and worship the consecrated host, because we believe it is Jesus Himself under the outward forms of bread and wine.<\/p>\n This \u201crealism\u201d is how St. Paul and the Fathers understood the Eucharist. If one wishes to adopt Calvin\u2019s understanding, then I want to know the\u00a0reason<\/i>\u00a0for such a massive change in understanding. Why should I accept Calvin\u2019s belief on this if it clashes with unbroken Christian Tradition?<\/p>\n The Incarnation (like transubstantiation) was another great \u201cchange\u201d \u2014 so much so that it scandalized the Jews, most of whom rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The Holy Trinity was perceived as a massive \u201cchange\u201d and indeed, as gross idolatry and blasphemy by the Jews. Since the Incarnation was so \u201cradical,\u201d one would fully expect Christian rituals to be correspondingly different and new, compared to what came before; yet not without aspects of continuity.<\/p>\n Thus, the Mass is based on the Last Supper, which was itself a Passover dinner. The Mass re-presents the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, which itself was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system. The Catholic priest fulfills and completes the \u201ctype\u201d of the Hebrew priest, offering the Lamb of God, Who is God, to God the Father, rather than mere lambs and other animals.<\/p>\n We believe the consecrated bread and wine are truly, substantially Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. It\u2019s not just a word game. It\u2019s not just a more \u201cpungent\u201d presence. God is omnipresent, so He is always \u201chere\u201d in that sense; transubstantiation is obviously a different sense of \u201cpresence\u201d than that; lest it be entirely superfluous and unnecessary. It reproduces the Incarnation: God became man. God can become equally present in a physical sense in what was once bread and wine. If He can do one thing, the second is no less plausible.<\/p>\n Faith is required, of course, because the appearance will not suggest this. But then, neither did the appearance of Jesus the Man, for many who beheld Him. You couldn\u2019t prove that Jesus was God by taking a blood test, or analyzing DNA from a skin sample. Likewise, you can\u2019t prove that a consecrated wafer is God.<\/p>\n In my opinion,\u00a0John Calvin dismisses biblical and patristic realism with mere (flawed, fallacious) philosophy and speculation. The burden of proof is on him and his followers to explain to us why we should believe something differently than what the Church always held previously.<\/p>\n God is omnipotent. It seems to me that\u00a0Protestants are denying His omnipotence, in saying that there is something He cannot do, which is entirely logically possible for Him to do; namely, become truly, substantially present in the Eucharist. Since it isn\u2019t possible to do that without sacrificing the doctrine of omnipotence, I don\u2019t see how it is possible for a Christian who accepts that attribute of God to argue in this way.<\/p>\n And what is it based on, anyway? We can come up with all sorts of \u201clogical conundrums\u201d as objections to traditional Christianity. The Jews argue against the Trinity because it is too difficult to understand and accept. So do Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses and Unitarians, and The Way International, and Christadelphians and a host of other non-trinitarian heretical sects. With one voice they all denounce the Holy Trinity as unreasonable, nonsensical, and unable to be comprehended or believed.<\/p>\n Now, because transubstantiation is difficult to believe, Calvin and his Reformed followers have also sought to set forth merely philosophical objections, so that they can reject the doctrine. I say that this is (though not intended to do this at all) putting philosophy above faith. Faith requires belief in many things that are difficult to understand. many things in Christian doctrine (things we all agree on) can never be totally proven or demonstrated.<\/p>\n So it comes down to deciding which doctrines are \u201cunreasonable,\u201d upon which we concentrate our powers of reason and attitude of skepticism. How does one decide when to do this? It\u2019s much more reasonable to accept the traditional faith whole and entire, as received \u2014 passed-down \u2014 from our brothers and sisters in the faith. We don\u2019t pick and choose what of that we can accept and which, reject, because that is arbitrary. I would strongly contend that this was how St. Paul viewed the matter.<\/p>\n But Protestants pick and choose and become skeptical of certain things precisely because they have changed the traditional rule of faith and have adopted private judgment and\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. They had to do so, otherwise, they would have no good reason to justify their separation from the traditional Church. They had to adopt a different principle of determining which doctrines are true and which are not.<\/p>\n The medieval theologians largely (but not exclusively) analyzed the Eucharist in terms of the Aristotelian \/ Scholastic (Thomistic) philosophy then prevalent. We believe it is a miracle, but one which we can grasp to a great extent by applying human rational thinking to it.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that Jesus is \u201cbrought down\u201d to earth, as if He is subject to human whims and magical formulas or incantations. In the Mass, the Cross is made a present reality. We are \u201cbrought up\u201d to God\u2019s sublime, timeless level. It is a miracle. It\u2019s not \u201cevery time such-and-such happens\u201d; rather, it is a\u00a0transcendence<\/i>\u00a0of time; Jesus on the Cross as sacrifice becomes present\u00a0outside of time<\/i>, just as God the Father is outside of time. This is part of the great miracle. The Incarnation becomes present as well, just as the Sacrifice on the Cross. Jesus can be present to every worshiper at Mass, just as He was in those 33-or-so years that He lived among us as an historical Person in the land of Israel.<\/p>\n The Mass\u00a0completely transcends space and time: so great is the miraculous nature of it. Jesus could walk through walls even before He ascended. Now He can become substantially present in what was once bread and wine. If you can believe one thing, it is no difficulty to believe (a priori<\/em>) the other. Karl Adam, author of the marvelous book\u00a0The Spirit of Catholicism\u00a0<\/i>(translated by Dom Justin McCann, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954 [originally 1924 in German], p. 197), remarks upon the transcendent nature of the Mass:<\/p>\n The Sacrifice of Calvary, as a great supra-temporal reality, enters into the immediate present. Space and time are abolished. The same Jesus is here present who died on the Cross. The whole congregation unites itself with His holy sacrificial will, and through Jesus present before it consecrates itself to the heavenly Father as a living oblation. So Holy Mass is a tremendously real experience, the experience of the reality of Golgotha.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Incarnation was physical; so is the Eucharist. The Incarnation transformed the relationship of God to His creation. Matter was raised to untold heights when God took on matter and became a Man.\u00a0The Cross was a physical event in time; so the Mass re-presents that one-time event and make it miraculously present; transporting the worships to the heavenlies.\u00a0We\u2019re merely repeating the words of consecration from the Last Supper, as our Lord commanded us, and echoing the explicitly \u201ceucharistic\u201d and \u201csacrificial \/ priestly\u201d language and described heavenly rituals in the books of Hebrews and Revelation.<\/p>\n He is either truly there or He is not. If so, then He should be \u2014 nay,\u00a0mus<\/i>t be \u2014\u00a0worshiped<\/i>\u00a0as He was when He walked the earth. If not, then it is foolish to speak of \u201creal presence\u201d and suchlike; it becomes simply wordplay. But the Reformed view illogically wants it both ways: to speak of being \u201creally present,\u201d yet refusing the next logical step of rendering worship and adoration. This makes no sense to me. If He is really there, He should be worshiped.\u00a0He was worshiped and adored when He walked the earth. He is now, too. We believe Jesus is really there, and then we worship Him because He is there. Yet that somehow becomes \u201cidolatry\u201d?<\/p>\n If there is no worship of Jesus in the miracle of the Eucharist, then there is no Eucharist, by definition. It\u2019s a hollow ritual smacking of pure Zwinglian symbolism. That brings us back to a presence no different from a spiritual (but not physical) presence that occurs at all times, everywhere.<\/p>\n St. Paul is simply using phenomenological language [in 1 Cor 11:26: \u201cbread\u201d and \u201cwine\u201d], just as we do when we say \u201cthe sun comes up.\u201d It is describing something by the appearance without denying the underlying reality (see also 1 Corinthians 10:16). Paul shows his eucharistic realism in verse 27 when he refers to those partaking \u201cin an unworthy manner\u201d as being \u201cguilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.\u201d Furthermore, he speaks the language of sacrifice and altar in 1 Corinthians 10:14-21. This makes no sense in the context of a non-realist interpretation of the Eucharist. He refers to pagans offering sacrifice in 10:20 (see v. 14). This is contrasted to \u201cthe table of the Lord\u201d in v. 21.<\/p>\n The analogy seems quite clear: the pagans offer to idol-demons at their table; Christian priests offer Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God at\u00a0their\u00a0<\/i>\u201ctable\u201d (i.e., altar). As the demons are falsely, idolatrously worshiped, so Jesus in the Eucharist is truly, properly worshiped and a priestly sacrifice occurs. But you want to take away this worship, or define it away as idolatry.\u00a0Some Protestants want to claim that the Mass is idolatrous<\/em>? I could just as easily say (only rhetorically, not actually) that their denial of worship of Jesus in the consecrated host is blasphemy<\/em>, since they are going against the very essence of the ritual and miracle by denying that He is really there (therefore they refuse worship and maintain that the bread and wine are never transformed).<\/p>\n Catholics believe that what appears to be bread and wine, no longer\u00a0is<\/i>, in\u00a0fact<\/i>. No idolatry can occur then, because to make something an idol, you have to believe that it is something other than the true God, and worship it in place of God. We don\u2019t believe it is anything else but<\/em> God, because we hold that it has\u00a0become<\/i>\u00a0the Body and Blood of Christ. It has changed its substance (trans [change] [of] \/ substantiation) Therefore, idolatry is impossible by\u00a0definition<\/i>\u00a0and simple category distinctions.<\/p>\n The Church is the Body of Christ insofar as Christ is in us. Yet no one says that the Church (made up of flesh and blood persons) is to be worshiped. Jesus Christ is to be worshiped. But Jesus is not\u00a0us<\/i>. He is\u00a0in<\/i>\u00a0us, and we are distinct from Him. We\u2019re created human beings making up a Church, and He is God. This is where\u00a0the contra-Catholic Protestant argument against adoration and Catholic doctrine supposedly establishing idolatry collapses, because\u00a0it freely moves between the categories of Real Presence and Body-of-Christ [Church] as Christ.<\/p>\n Calvinists\u00a0say that the bread and wine are present, yet true worship occurs, and no idolatry, in the eucharistic service. But if\u00a0they can worship Jesus while bread and wine are still present, and not commit idolatry, and worship Jesus somehow in and through the Church (since the latter is also His Body), why is it that one cannot worship Jesus when they believe that\u00a0no<\/i>\u00a0bread and wine are present? Why is it that\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0is considered idolatry, whereas worship of Jesus \u201calongside\u201d bread and wine is\u00a0not<\/i>? It seems to me that if the charge of idolatry is to be slung around, that it is far more apt to those who worship according to\u00a0the Calvinist view, than to those who follow the Catholic view.<\/p>\n The Church can be the Body of Christ without being worshiped, but (what was once) bread cannot provide a sign or appearance without bread also being worshiped idolatrously? This makes no sense at all.\u00a0Calvinists could, likewise, argue (since they say that they accept the \u201creal presence\u201d) that \u201cthe\u00a0bread<\/i>\u00a0is also truly the body of Christ without being a proper object of our worship.\u201d<\/p>\n Then\u00a0they would be admitting that it is possible to separate the sign and the created matter from our Lord, Who is being worshiped. By the same token, Catholics can just as easily separate the sign and appearance of bread from the God Whom they are worshiping. But we don\u2019t believe that the bread is there<\/em> any longer.\u00a0Calvinists and other Protestants do<\/em>. Yet\u00a0we\u00a0<\/i>are supposedly idolaters and\u00a0they aren\u2019t? It\u2019s completely incoherent and illogical; nonsensical.<\/p>\n The real presence is not \u201cin the elements\u201d (which is Luther\u2019s consubstantiation or Calvin\u2019s spiritual presence). Rather, the elements have been changed<\/em> and transformed<\/em> to Jesus\u2019 Body and Blood. If what appears to be bread and wine are now actually<\/em> His Body and Blood, they can be\u00a0worshiped<\/i>. Period. End of sentence.<\/p>\n Why is this so difficult to grasp?\u00a0Protestants<\/em>\u00a0may not believe that, and\u00a0think that they are bread and wine. But\u00a0Catholics<\/i>\u00a0believe that bread and wine are no longer\u00a0present<\/i>, and\u00a0Catholics<\/i>\u00a0are the ones\u00a0being accused of being idolaters. Idolatry is an\u00a0internal condition<\/i>\u00a0of placing some creation above God, in His place. How can one believe in transubstantiation, and worship the consecrated host, believing that it is no longer bread, but God, and be an idolater? It isn\u2019t possible. And it isn\u2019t, not only because the categories are confused by the critics, but because it isn\u2019t possible to replace God with something else, if one doesn\u2019t\u00a0believe<\/i>\u00a0the \u201csomething else\u201d\u00a0is there at all<\/i>.<\/p>\n The Catholic believes, rather, that God is truly present under the accidents of what\u00a0looks like\u00a0<\/i>bread and wine, just as all Nicene Christians believe that God became a man, taking on outward qualities that look to all appearances to be no different than other men, all of whom are mere creatures; yet this man was God. If God could be 100% God and 100% man at the same time (Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), then why is it so inconceivable that He could be 100% God and only\u00a0look<\/i>\u00a0like bread and wine?<\/p>\n Which is more difficult to accept, according to natural reason? I submit that the Incarnation and Two Natures of Christ are, in many ways, more difficult to believe than transubstantiation (because by raw logic it makes no sense for something to be \u201c100% or \u201cfully\u201d two things at the same time). Yet\u00a0Calvinists and other Protestants have no difficulty accepting that, while the latter is regarded as idolatrous, insofar as adoration of the consecrated host occurs.<\/p>\n Transubstantiation goes back to the early centuries in kernel form, because a transformational view of the Eucharist was the leading opinion in the Fathers, so it is foolish to try to trace (the origin of?) this so-called \u201cstrange miracle\u201d to later times. I would argue, too, of course, that the transformational view (without technical philosophical terminology) is taught fairly explicitly in Scripture, too.<\/p>\n Calvinists want to maintain the realism of the terminology \u201cwe . . . eat of Christ\u2019s body and drink of His blood,\u201d on the one hand, but\u00a0they (in effect) immediately take it away with the other, by denying that it is supernatural. There are only so many choices here. If\u00a0they want to take a merely symbolic view, then that is one way to resolve the dilemma. But Calvinists want to maintain \u201ceucharistic realism.\u201d Yet this can\u2019t be without some supernatural element being present.<\/p>\n The reason is rather obvious: bread and wine are clearly not Jesus\u2019 Body and Blood. They are, well, bread and wine. If a Calvinist agrees that something happens during a Christian service whereby Jesus\u2019 Body and Blood are now present in a \u201creal\u201d way, then either it is just word games (and thus reduces to Zwingli\u2019s symbolism, in my opinion), or there is truly something<\/em> more present<\/em> (and that, more than merely \u201cspiritually,\u201d which is how God is with us all the time). To the extent that the \u201cmore\u201d is physical, it must be miraculous. I don\u2019t see how it could not be. We\u2019re not dealing with science and natural philosophy here, but with the \u201cmetaphysical\u201d and spiritual mysteries of the faith.<\/p>\n Whatever\u00a0Calvinists believe with regard to the Holy Eucharist, it is assuredly supernatural or miraculous, because it involves notions and realities that transcend mere bread and wine. Any atheist would think\u00a0both sides were both nuts, and perfectly irrational, and he would, precisely because he doesn\u2019t accept the supernatural (or spiritual realities). Those categories are nonsensical to him. I think an atheist would find it rather strange that\u00a0Calvinists\u00a0deny the supernatural in\u00a0their analysis, when to him it clearly would appear that supernatural concepts and entities are involved for\u00a0either<\/i>\u00a0of our beliefs (which to him would probably seem to be only variations on a theme).<\/p>\n I find it odd that\u00a0Calvinists appear inclined towards a less miraculous or non-miraculous conception, when all indications are that the New Covenant and the Eucharist instituted by our Lord Jesus Himself, have \u201cmiraculous\u201d and \u201cnew\u201d written all over them. Jesus referred back to the manna in the wilderness in his John 6 (quite eucharistic) discourse. Manna was miraculous. It wasn\u2019t natural. It came from heaven, by God\u2019s decree.<\/p>\n The feeding of the five thousand \u2014 closely examined \u2014 shows signs of some sacramental, eucharistic meaning (and it was a meal, just as manna provided a good many meals for the Jews in the wilderness). That, too, was a miracle: an \u201cintersection\u201d between a powerful Lord and His people.<\/p>\n When Jesus appeared to the disciples after His Resurrection, He had a Body which was capable of very \u201cunnatural\u201d things, such as what appeared to be \u201cwalking through walls.\u201d That was beyond our normal humdrum experience, too. So where\u00a0Calvinists see a routine meal, I see wondrous miracles and parallels to same all over the place.<\/p>\n Sacraments are inherently a mixing of natural and supernatural, because what they mean is \u201csome form of matter which conveys grace.\u201d Grace is a supernatural entity, not a natural one. So the dead guy is thrown onto Elisha\u2019s bones (natural) and he is raised from the dead (supernatural). Paul\u2019s handkerchief (natural) heals people (supernatural). Jesus uses mud to put into the blind man\u2019s eyes (natural), and he sees (supernatural). The woman touches Jesus\u2019 robe and is healed (this is what we call in Catholic theology a \u201csecondary relic\u201d). Water is poured on a baby\u2019s head (natural), and regeneration occurs (supernatural). Are not all these things \u201csharply separated\u201d from the natural world in general? They\u2019re not natural at all, insofar as spiritual,\u00a0supernatural elements are involved in each one of them.<\/p>\n If\u00a0we go back to the roots of the Passover, that was as miraculous as any of the other major events in Hebrew and salvation history. The Jews were instructed to put lamb\u2019s blood \u201con the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses\u201d (Ex 12:7). God would see that and pass over each house which had it (hence the name), while He smote the Egyptian firstborn (Ex 12:12-13). This is thoroughly sacramental, and also equally supernatural and miraculous. It\u2019s not routine or \u201cnatural\u201d at all. It has nothing to do with \u201cnatural\u201d except that natural means were used to produce a supernatural, sacramental effect, according to the essential nature of all sacraments and sacramentals (in Catholicism, things such as holy water, relics, blessings, crucifixes, scapulars, etc.).<\/p>\n The blood of lambs and goats somehow caused God to not judge sinners. Later, of course, the blood of Jesus the Lamb of God, would cover our sins and cause us to be spiritually saved, just as the Jews were physically saved from judgment (the former was a type or shadow of, and analogy to, the latter). That\u2019s supernatural. It seems to me, then, that all indications favor a \u201csupernaturalist\u201d conception of both Passover and the Eucharist which was a later development of it.<\/p>\n The Mass is not \u201cradically different\u201d from the Passover. It is a consistent\u00a0development<\/i>\u00a0of it, in accordance with general New Testament and New Covenant principles of how things developed (Sunday worship<\/i>\u00a0as a development of the old\u00a0Sabbath<\/i>\u00a0is another such instance). Jews observed Passover once a year. Christians observe the Eucharist every Sunday. It\u2019s more intense; the miraculous is made the centerpiece of worship in a way that Judaism couldn\u2019t do (for lack of the sheer number of Lambs, for one thing). Jesus has become our Passover Lamb. The parallels are striking and most fascinating. The Mass is also similar to our \u201cdaily meals\u201d insofar as it is a communal gathering and partaking of (what was and still appears to be) bread and wine. Families gather together as a \u201ccommunity\u201d to eat dinner; so do assemblies of Christians, the Family or People of God.<\/p>\n [In the original dialogue I cited at this point, long potions of Scott Hahn\u2019s famous talk, \u201cThe Fourth Cup\u201d<\/a>]<\/p>\n It\u2019s not \u201cusual\u201d or \u201ccommon\u201d in everyday life to have Jesus walk into the room. When that happens, you get on your face on the floor at His feet, and beg for mercy (as Isaiah did when He \u201csaw God\u201d \u2014 Isaiah 6:1-5). Thus, Catholics worship Jesus in the Eucharist, and confess our sins before receiving Him. And we genuflect and bow our heads at the consecration. It\u2019s the most glorious part of the liturgy, and the reason we are all there. This is \u201creal presence.\u201d Jesus is \u201creally\u201d there, just as if we were back in Galilee with Peter and the fishermen.<\/p>\n Calvinists want to talk about Real Presence, but\u00a0they\u00a0don\u2019t want to act as\u00a0they would if Jesus made a post-Resurrection appearance and stood before them. What would\u00a0they do, then<\/em>? Would they say, \u201cwell, my Lord, I do adore You and worship You and serve You with all my heart, but I don\u2019t believe that this meeting with you should be regarded as separate from the rest of my life. It\u2019s not supernatural. It\u2019s only natural. You lived as a Man and here you are now with me.\u201d Is that not a rather obvious\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/i>? I think so.<\/p>\n I think it is wrongheaded to view the matter as a continuation of daily life more so than to view it as a compelling, profound, existential experience of the central tenet of faith and greatest moment in the history of the world and of salvation history: the crucifixion and Jesus\u2019 sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the world. That\u2019s how we look at it: the cross is made present, and we receive our Lord. This is what Christian ritual and worship is about. It\u2019s not abstract. It is very concrete. And that is the sacramental, incarnational essence of worship.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve tried very hard to see the Reformed (and Calvin\u2019s own) view of the Eucharist as some form of \u201cReal Presence,\u201d but the more I learn, the more it seems apparent to me that the two concepts cannot be reconciled. Perhaps this is why (so I hear from many of the \u201chigh Reformed\u201d) many Reformed Christians today are practically Zwinglians with regard to the Eucharist? Calvin already took away too many essential aspects of the Eucharist. Others simply take it further, because once you depart from a received Tradition of Christianity (even a lesser denominational tradition or creed), the overwhelming tendency is for folks to become more and more liberal, and believe less and less (hence, theological liberalism itself, that we are all blessed with).<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> Christ the Saviour<\/em>, by Juan de Juanes (1510-1579); photograph uploaded by<\/span>\u00a0Quinok<\/a>\u00a0[public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (2-4-05; abridged and very slightly edited \/ added to otherwise, on 12-7-17) *** This is drawn from what was originally a very extensive dialogue with a friendly and learned Reformed Protestant, Alastair Roberts. At first, he himself asked me to respond to a series that he wrote on the topic. I was happy to oblige. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":14725,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[595,365,364,4660,384,650,417,3281,713,2337,385],"class_list":["post-14723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eucharist-liturgy","tag-consecration","tag-holy-communion","tag-holy-eucharist","tag-orthodox-catholic-belief","tag-real-presence","tag-sacramentalism","tag-sacrifice-of-the-mass","tag-substance-and-accidents","tag-substantial-presence","tag-the-mass","tag-transubstantiation"],"yoast_head":"\n