Transubstantiation 1

I stirred up the hornets' nest Sunday with my sermon on John 6. While generally it is the Liberal/Modernist whose disdain I most often experience, this week it was the "Protestant" friends of my beloved church who were less than receptive. I was informed that I strayed beyond the 39 articles. Let me start with that.

I have long lived by the principle that my own faith and beliefs shall endure the same scrutiny as my critique of others. I do not argue for my position with tenacity while refusing to listen to other points of view. Which means, of course, that I am advocating real dialogue in pursuit of the truth--however, it is sometimes the case that one engages in debate to argue for a position. This is legitimate. But it comes after listening and being critical of what I think.

So what of the 39 articles? The American Episcopal church made changes in these articles upon the split from England. One could hardly expect the church to remain under the Crown when the colonies no longer were! (articles 21, 36 & 37 for example) This means that as I read them I notice that their status is already in flux. While some would argue church governance is not important theologically, I would say that remains to be seen. What is clear, the 39 Articles are not never changing like the Ten Commandments. (Minor differences in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 which provide us with the Ten Commandments aside.) There is a second issue as well. Article 19 says, "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred; so also has the church of Rome erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies but also in matters of faith." A logical conclusion is so, also, the Church of England and by extension the Episcopal Church in America. This lack of humility is reflective of the conflictual times in which the artivles were generated. This is no small thing. Are the Articles an infallible document? Were their formulation unduly shaped by ecclessial conflicts and politics and even petty human grievances?

The reason for this question is because the articles reject the term transubstantiation and claim the Jesus is only present in a heavenly and spiritual way and that sinners do not receive His body and blood in reception. While motivated by legitimate concerns about abuses and erroneous practices in the Roman church (And like all solutions, it creates new problems). One cause of this is the viciousness of competing parties. Both Rome and Canterbury have her list of martyrs. Many people were killed because they practiced an outlawed faith. Whoever was in charge at the time tended to do the killing. Such viciousness does not generate a tolerant spirit and such violence leads to extremism. The Roman church was brutal and sometimes unfair in its dealing with protestants. While real theological differences are at work, I think it naive to assume that anger and the intent to "reject all things Roman Catholic" certainly were also at play in England.

Now as a former Roman Catholic, I am hardly indifferent to all this. I am still Catholic, but I am not Roman. And Roman Catholics in America are certainly very vocal in their criticism and questioning the Roman Church. However, there is a strain of anti-catholicism which regularly rears its head among Evangelicals (conservative and liberal). The painful truth is our allegiance to Christ does not draw us together. The more devout can sometimes also be the most intolerant. Doctrines are the product of conscious theological positions and unconscious animosity and resentment.

Where does one find the doctrine of the eucharist in Scripture? While the Synoptic Gospels tell us of the Last Supper and 1 Corinthians provides teaching on the proper behavior at eucharist, it is probably John 6 which is really the most developed theology of the eucharist. I daresay that this is where the discussion should begin. And as the articles repeatedly say the Sciptures are the source, I think it fair to ask if article 28 & 29 are totally accurate. Is transubstantiation repugnant to the plain words of Scripture?

While most assume that because I am Catholic I am, therefore, gung ho for the word let me provide some closing remarks and return tomorrow to the discussion of John 6. First of all, I do not think the word helpful and I tend not to use it. However, unhelpful does not mean untrue. Secondly, Fr. Traets, my sacramentology professor at Leuven, did not teach us transubstantiation. I did not grow up a reactionary, conservative Roman Catholic and my seminary was pretty Liberal by most standards. Having tried to make the case that I will try to be objective I invite you to come along with me in this reflection and provide your own insights. So tomorrow we look more deeply.