Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, part 7—Alan Schreck

Alan Schreck is the Associate Professor of Theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville Ohio who holds a doctorate in theology from the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto.

Just as does Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating, Professor Schreck notes,
“^{In the New Testament, the Greek word estin that is used in Jesus’ saying, ‘This is my body,’ could mean either ‘is really’ or ‘is figuratively’ (or ‘signifies’)}. Both senses of the word occur in the New Testament. Which is correct? Is Jesus saying that the bread is really his body, and the wine is really his blood, or do they symbolize his body and blood? Catholic Christians understanding Jesus’ words in light of the ‘commentary’ on these words given in the Gospel of John and in Paul’s letters, and in light of the testimony of the early Christians.
Chapter 6 of John’s Gospel, the last gospel written, implies that the early Christians had insisted that the eucharist bread and wine were truly the body and blood of Jesus, and that this had become a source of scandal to the Jews and others who were considering becoming Christians. John emphasizes that Jesus really meant that he expected his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood (Jn 6:51-57), and that he predicted that many people would be scandalized and fall away from following him because of this teaching (Jn 6:60-64)…This was no ‘symbolic’ reception, according to John, but was actually eating the real body of Christ and drinking his real blood.”1
As we have noted, in the earliest days of Christianity allegations were made which stated that Christians were cannibals. But our Christian ancestors explained that they were not practicing cannibalism because they were not literally consuming flesh and blood; it was symbolic. I consider the question of John’s understanding of Jesus’ words in the essay The Issue of John 6.
The problem is that if ‘This is my body,’ could mean either ‘is really’ or ‘is figuratively’ (or ‘signifies’) then when John or Paul speak of Jesus’ words the same question must be posed and their words would offer no answer. In other words, if they understood it symbolically then when they say that the bread is the body and the wine is the blood they mean it in a symbolic manner.
“Does the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper have any significance for salvation? Jesus told the Jews: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:53-54)”2
As I point out in more detail in the essay on Fr. Thomas Krieg, Roman Catholicism believes that it alone has the authentic Eucharist. What does this say to non-Catholic Christians? Where is our salvation?

^{“Catholics do not ‘worship the host,’ but worship Jesus Christ whom they discern by faith to be present in the host.”}3
Note that Assistant Professor Alan Schreck’s book from which we are quoting is titled Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs. It is obvious throughout the book that he is attempting to make Roman Catholic beliefs palatable to non-Catholic Christians. There is nothing wrong with that except that we often find in Roman Catholic teachings that encourage worship of the Eucharist.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church #1380 states,
^{“The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharist worship”}[John Paul II, Dominicae cenae, 3]. Catholic apologetics magazine Questions and Answers states “‘consubstantiation’ would not permit a Christian to worship the host after consecration.”4
It also seems that he is misstating the doctrine, according to Roman Catholicism Jesus is not present in the host but rather, Jesus becomes the host and or, the host becomes Jesus. The argument states if the bread turns into Jesus then what is wrong with worshipping it?

“The Catholic Church has never taught that in the Mass Jesus is ‘re-sacrificed’ or offered up to suffer again. The Catholic Mass is called a sacrifice because it ‘re-presents,’ ‘re-enacts,’ or presents once again before us, the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Jesus Christ was sacrificed once, but God, in his mercy, makes present to us once again the one sacrifice of Christ through the Mass so that we human beings can enter more deeply into the reality and significance of that sacrifice. Catholics believe that this is possible because Jesus is ‘the same yesterday, today and forever’ (Heb 13:8). What Jesus did in the past—his death on the cross—is present to God. God can make this sacrifice present to us when Christians gather to celebrate the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist in his memory.”5
See the essays Roman Catholic Dictionaries and The Catechism of the Catholic Church to get a better idea of the language employed by Roman Catholicism in discussing this issue. One example is “in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when ‘he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearance of bread and wine.’”6
Note carefully that immolation means, “to kill as a sacrificial victim” (Webster’s 1983). How can the Mass be a sacrifice if there is no sacrifice but only a memory of it? Why is the Mass called unbloody if the literal blood that was literally “shed for you” is literally present?

“Catholic Christians consider these divisions and disagreements so serious that, except in special circumstances approved by the local bishop, they cannot in good conscience participate in communion services in other Christian churches, nor allow other Christians to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, until these differences are resolved.”7
This sort of exclusivism does not demonstrate the love of Jesus. I discuss this further in the essay on Fr. Thomas Krieg.

^{“Catholics believe that these elders, the bishops and the priests they ordain, preside over the eucharistic celebration through the authority they have received from Jesus Christ.”}8
This concept of an apostolic succession of priesthood does not take into consideration that we find no priesthood under the New Covenant except as specified in Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6, which speaks of a priesthood of all believers.

“The letter to the Hebrews warns against, ‘neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some’ (Heb 10:25). The Catholic Church today follows this practice in requiring its members to worship together on Sunday as a community. This is something that a faithful follower of Jesus and member of his body, the church, should desire to do, anyway.”9
True enough; a faithful follower of Jesus should desire to join with others in worship. However, there is a lot more to it than that, as far as the Vatican is concerned. Masses are Holy Days of Obligation, which the Catholic NAB Encyclopedic Dictionary defines as, “Days on which Catholics are obligated under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass and to abstain from all unnecessary servile work.”
The NAB Encyclopedic Dictionary defines mortal sin as, “A most serious offense against God, and it is called mortal because it destroys one’s relationship of friendship with God. Through mortal sin one condemns self to separation from God which is called damnation.” According to Roman Catholicism if a person dies with unrepented mortal sin they will go to hell for all eternity, not to purgatory, which is where, according to dogma, one may suffer for unrepented venial sin or make satisfaction for forgiven mortal sin. Under the New Covenant the Word of God knows no such thing as days of obligatory holidays punishable by damnation if they are not kept. In fact, the exact opposite is true, Paul writes,

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

Paul also explains,

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you (Galatians 4:8-11).

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it (Romans 14:5-6).

1. 1. Alan Schreck, Catholic and Christian, An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1984), pp. 129-130. Nihil Obstat: Msgr. Joseph P. Malara, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Rev. Albert H. Ottenweller, Bishop of Steubenville 9-11-86
2. 2. Schreck, p. 28
3. 3. Schreck, p. 131
4. 4. Thy Faith, Inc. “Questions and Answers,” Hands On Apologetics, A Magazine of Practical Apologetics and Evangelization for Today’s Catholics, Vol. 4, Num. 4 (July/August 1998), p. 5
5. 5. Schreck, pp. 134-135
6. 6. Austin Flannery, O.P., gen. ed., Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (New York: Costello Publishing Co., 1975), p. 103, quoting Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, section B:2, quoting Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Mysterium Fidel: AAS 57 (1965), p. 762. Nihil Obstat: Rev. Francis X. Glimm, S.T.L., Censor Librorum 7-25-75. Imprimatur: +Walter P. Kellenberg, D.D., Bishop of Rockville Center 8-12-75
7. 7. Schreck, p. 135
8. 8. Schreck, p. 135
9. 9. Schreck, pp. 132-133