How do Roman Catholics reconcile Acts 15:20 with transubstantiation?
score:1
Transubstantiation for a Catholic is from the philosophic concept of substance and accidents which could perhaps be phrased reality and appearance. The substance is the reality of the thing, in this case bread or wine and the accidents is what it appears to be. During the consecration, each element (bread and wine) are changed in substance while the accidents remain the same so, for example, the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord really and truly in the sacrament while still looking, smelling and tasting like wine.
The question equates the changed wine with the substance & accidents of blood which is not the case here. The blood referred to here is both blood in accidents and substance. While the Greek αἷμα can refer to literal blood or those things that refer to blood such as the blood of grapes (eSword G129, Thayers & Strong's), one must take this commentary reference into account:
20. (in part)... The four classes (also v28; 21:25) seem to be four of the things proscribed by Lev 17-18 for aliens residing in Israel: meat offered to idols, the eating of blood and of strangled animals (not ritually slaughtered) and intercourse with close kin (see Lev 17:8-9, 10-12, 15 [Exod 22:31]; 18:6-18). 21. Supporting the four clauses (gar) is their recognition factor, based on the universal Torah instruction. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg 752
This reference to Leviticus is not a sacramental but a literal reference, hence requiring the blood (αἷμα) referred to in the passage to be meant literally as blood and not in some other way, hence there is no contradiction as it might appear on the surface.
This is a good article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia that discusses transubstantiation http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3.
Upvote:1
Read just about any commentary and it will tell you that the restrictions in Acts 15 are 1) temporary (for the church at that time), and 2) based on the prohibitions in Leviticus 17 and 18. They are meant for allowing the Jews and Gentiles of the first-century church to integrate so that they could be united. Protestants and Catholics are usually agreed on these points.
The prohibition in Leviticus 17 is dietary and refers to the blood of animals. Ordinarily one eats only plants and animals as part of their diet. But sacramentally we partake of Christ's body and blood. This is no more a violation of the prohibition against blood of animals than it is a violation of the prohibition against cannibalism. Jesus commanded us to partake of his body and blood. It scandalized the people, but he insisted.
So with all that being said, I don't think it makes sense to point to the fact that Acts 15 is about blood that has the accidents of blood when the blood in the Eucharist has the accidents of wine. Blood is blood. The whole point of the doctrine of transubstantiation is that, despite the look, taste, etc. it is blood. Therefore I think the actual distinction, from a Catholic perspective, is between animal blood (with a basis in the Jewish law) and Christ's blood (which he commanded us to partake).
Upvote:1
The eucharistic blood does not run afoul of Acts 15:20 for the same reason that the eucharistic body is not cannibalism, even though it is the eating of the body of Christ. There are two answers to this question here, but I don't like either one.
Transubstantiation is a metaphysical reality, not a physical reality. If you know about metaphysics, then the substance changes, but the accidents don't. If you're not into metaphysics, then it's not the appearance of the bread and wine that changes, but the significance of the elements.
We're not eating a human body that we've just killed and boiled in a pot. We're eating the second person of the living deity that has just entered into bread and wine, ordinary-looking food, so that He might enter us and commune with us. In the same way, the second person of that very same deity once entered into a physical human body and lived a life on earth and died a horrible death, but then rose from the dead and ascended back into heaven. His sacrifice, once and for all, saves us and we participate in that sacrifice by taking communion.
By analogy, in the Old Testament the Jews had a communion sacrifice in which a lamb was killed, part was burned on the altar, and the rest was consumed by the family. The significance here was that God was sharing a meal with the family. The mutton was no longer ordinary meat, but had been made holy by the sacrifice. God was present because He resided in the temple, and because He was invited to the family's meal by the sacrifice.
More post
- 📝 Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) translational differences
- 📝 Did Jesus's rational soul or His spirit descend into hell?
- 📝 What's the biblical basis for non-believer's ability to do good?
- 📝 What specific scholarship is there behind the New World Translation?
- 📝 Can a bishop excommunicate a retired bishop?
- 📝 What do Chinese Catholics call their priests?
- 📝 How was 'years' defined in the book of Genesis?
- 📝 Why would Sapphira have had a say in disposition of property?
- 📝 Was salvation available to Lucifer and those angels who rebelled with him?
- 📝 According to the Catholic Church, are there levels of spiritual enlightenment in Christianity?
- 📝 Which encyclical talks about the Mass as a sacrifice?
- 📝 What kind of Roman cross was used to crucify Jesus?
- 📝 What is the Biblical basis for the belief that life begins at conception?
- 📝 Would Calvinists classify themselves as determinists?
- 📝 Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours?
- 📝 Is there any biblical doctrine on how to avoid paranoia as a Christian under an Protestant framework?
- 📝 What is the basis that some Protestants teach the non-necessity of baptism for salvation?
- 📝 What is the meaning of "GNU" and how should it be displayed on a cremation urn?
- 📝 How does the Catechism translate "longanimitas"?
- 📝 Does the Holy Sprit prevent one from praying for those to whom the intended prayer is of no use?
- 📝 What was the charge levied against Jesus in the courts?
- 📝 What are the meaning of and the biblical basis for the practice of pleading the blood of Jesus in prayer?
- 📝 When did the idea start that divine revelation is "finished"?
- 📝 What is the Biblical basis for using the names "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua" (Joshua) for Jesus?
- 📝 Are we avatars (incarnations) of God?
- 📝 Are these verses from Proverbs contradictory?
- 📝 Did Martin Luther take exception to the gospels in any way?
- 📝 What are critiques of the theory that Mt. Sinai was volcanic?
- 📝 If we receive infinite grace through bread and wine as the Catholic theology say, why does a person still sin against God?
- 📝 Is the term Kyrie Eleison Latin or Greek?
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 How do Roman Catholics reconcile Acts 15:20 with transubstantiation?
- 📝 How do Roman Catholics reconcile the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus with his not having returned?
- 📝 How do Catholics reconcile Christ's intercessory prayer with the doctrine of the Trinity?
- 📝 How does a Roman Catholic reconcile a preference for purely procreative sex with the Song of Solomon?
- 📝 How do Catholics reconcile the Immaculate Conception with Romans 3:23?
- 📝 How do Catholics reconcile a metaphorical Adam and Eve with Original Sin
- 📝 How do young earth creationists reconcile the age of the universe with the speed of light, and visible distant objects?
- 📝 How does Matthew 25:31-46 ("The Sheep and the Goats") reconcile with salvation by faith?
- 📝 How does LDS doctrine reconcile monotheism with men becoming gods?
- 📝 How does the Catholic Church reconcile evolution with original sin?
- 📝 How do Christians reconcile God's omnipotence with his omniscience?
- 📝 How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?
- 📝 How do "Sola Fide" adherents reconcile with the three aspects of faith?
- 📝 How does one reconcile the sinlessness of Mary with her sin offering in Luke 2:24?
- 📝 How do Christians who reject pre-fall death reconcile their views with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (66 million years ago)?
- 📝 How to reconcile the Didache's instruction with Apostolic succession?
- 📝 How do Theistic Evolutionists who are Christians reconcile these Scriptures with the adoption of evolutionary theory?
- 📝 How do Roman Catholics understand salvation in light of Romans 3&4?
- 📝 How do we reconcile the futility of Ecclesiastes with the reward of heaven?
- 📝 The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ existed eternally or everlastingly, how do they reconcile this with Micah 5:2?
- 📝 How do evangelical universalists reconcile their position with the designation for Judas that it would be better if he had never been born?
- 📝 John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God" - How do Trinitarians reconcile this scripture with the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God?
- 📝 How do liberal Protestants reconcile support for transgenderism with scripture?
- 📝 How do Catholics deal with prophecies of future perpetual animal sacrifice?
- 📝 How did Pascal reconcile his wager with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalms 50?
- 📝 How do Arminians reconcile free will with God's omnipotence logically?
- 📝 How do Roman Catholics interpret 1 Timothy 4:3
- 📝 How did John Calvin reconcile killing followers of opposing religious views with the New Testament?
- 📝 How to reconcile the original creation of every soul (Creationism) by God with original sin?
- 📝 How would the Catholic Church reconcile 1 Thess 4:13 (which suggests soul sleep) with the doctrine of Intercession of Saints?