A Pocket-Sized Defense of the Eucharist

I recently found myself in a chat at a coffee shop with a non-Catholic, yet rather religious person. Our conversation drifted into the discussion of the Eucharist and the hocus-pocus subject of transubstantiation.

While I'm a cradle Catholic, and many-years-ago former CCD teacher, I found myself off guard, and bumbling more or less through the proper apologetics for defending and explaining the Eucharist and transubstantiation. There are books written at length and depth explaining the theological and doctrinal basis of this doctrine. But on returning home, I resolved to crystallize the Catholic argument into a "pocket-sized" piece that one can use on the spot. Here it is:

The three most common arguments you will hear against transubstantiation is as follows: 

1. Literal vs. Symbolic interpretation of Scripture--Jesus' words at the Last Supper were meant figuratively, not literally
2. Philosophical Rejection of "Substance" and "Accidents"--Using the substance, what a thing is, and accidents, its appearance, is non-biblical and philosophically outdated; it seems invented.
3. Sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice and Opposition to Re-sacrificing--the Mass implies a re-sacrifice of Christ, which contradicts the New Testament teaching that Christ's sacrifice was "once for all" (Heb 10:10-14)

Catholic Response:

1. When God speaks reality changes (e.g., Let there be light...") In John 6, when Jesus repeatedly states, "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink," He does not correct them or clarify it as symbolic. So too, when He says, "This is my body...this is my blood" it is no exaggeration, especially as a sacrament. It is covenantal language rooted in Jewish sacrifice. 

2. Substance and Accidents are used to explain a mystery, not to create one. These are tools to articulate what faith already knows: the appearance of bread/wine remain, but the inner reality has changed by Christ's words. Plus, long before the Greeks/Aristotle, the Early Church Fathers already taught the Real Presence.

3. The Mass is not a repetition of Calvary, it is not a new sacrifice, but rather a re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Calvary. Christ's sacrifice is outside of time. In the Mass, the Church is not re-doing the sacrifice but rather is mystically bringing the Church into that one sacrifice.

Bishop Fulton Sheen says with respect to the above:

1. Love always means union. The Eucharist is Christ's chosen way to remain/in union with His Church. ("I am with you always.") Dismissing the Real Presence empties Christ's love of its most intimate expression.
2. Mysteries are not to be explained away, but rather to be understood with the help of reason illumined by faith. The language of Substance and Accidents is not the origin of the belief but an effort to express it.
3. The Mass is the extension of Calvary through space and time. Because grace flows anew each time the Mass is offered, the Mass is Heaven touching Earth, not Christ being crucified again.

In Summary:

1. When Jesus spoke, he meant what he said.
2. Substance and Accidents are used to articulate or express, not create, the mystery of transubstantiation.
3. The Mass is a re-presentation, not a repeating of, Calvary.

I hope this is helpful. Be bold in your witness. 

In Christ