Is there a “Problem” with Transubstantiation? Response to Hendro Munsterman

On expressing and explaining Divine Revelation…

Is there a “Problem” with Transubstantiation?
Response to Hendro Munsterman

The beautiful Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation has long been a thorn in the side of Modernists and other heretical innovators. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is also under attack in the Novus Ordo Church, which, although teaching the dogma in its official universal catechism, denies or attacks it in various other ways.

For instance, the Vatican II Church undermines belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist by the way it offers “Mass”, in the way “Holy Communion” is distributed, and in the fact that it authorizes even heretics and now also public adulterers to receive the ostensible Blessed Sacrament under certain circumstances. Furthermore, it is denied by the (at least tacit and de facto) authorization of “alternate explanations” of the Real Presence, some of which are found in the preaching of high-profile Novus Ordo authorities, not excepting the current “Pope” himself, who professes the Lutheran heresy of Consubstantiation at best:

Other theological heavyweights, both at one point head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, likewise deny the dogma as defined by the Council of Trent:

The Nouvelle Theologie (“New Theology”, also known as ressourcement theology) that has been in vogue in the Vatican and throughouth the Novus Ordo Church since the 1960s, tends to dilute dogma and established doctrine to the point of total disintegration. Thanks to “Pope” John XXIII, it quickly became the official theology of the Second Vatican Council, and the results are now in.

Back in 1946, the saintly Dominican Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange blasted this dangerous philosophical current for leading Catholics straight back to Modernism. That same year, Pope Pius XII condemned it in an allocution to Jesuits, noting that “because of its characteristic of moving along with everything in a state of perpetual motion, [it] will always be on the road to somewhere but will never arrive anywhere. If one thought that one had to agree with an idea like that, what would become of Catholic dogmas, which must never change? What would happen to the unity and stability of faith?”

What indeed! With the Nouvelle Theologie unfettered for the last six decades or so, we can now behold its frightful consequences in the doctrinal, moral, and spiritual wasteland that is the Vatican II Sect. The Catholic Faith is gone! It has been dissolved under the pretext of “rediscovering” the sources of theology. What was straight, is now crooked; what was clear, is now fuzzy; what was certain, is now doubtful.

Hence we find that Benedict XVI has spoken of a “transubstantiation of the world”; Francis discovers “the presence of God today” in Muslim refugees and declares the poor to be “a true presence of Jesus in our midst”; and the “papal” household preacher drones on about a “sacrament of poverty” that consists of “the presence of Christ under the species of the suffering”. With such theology, it is no wonder that one Jesuit Novus Ordo priest wrote last year: “When I repeat the words of consecration, I sometimes wonder what Christ meant”. The damage done to souls is incalculable.

A recent instance that illustrates what the New Theology does to Catholic dogma can be found in the article “The Problem with Transubstantiation”, published on Nov. 17, 2021, by the Novus Ordo publication La Croix International. The author is Hendro Munsterman, a Dutch journalist and theologian working out of Rome. The essay was apparently first published in Dutch in 2019, occasioned by a Pew Research poll of Aug. 5 of that year, according to which only one third of American “Catholics” believe in Transubstantiation. It has now been released in English translation.

The essay is loaded with numerous errors and half-truths, such that it will be worthwhile to dissect it and provide some analysis and commentary in response. We will quote only those portions that merit a reaction.

The Pew surveyed [sic] actually asked Catholics if they believed in “the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation” or that “bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ”. In other words, it was a question of believing in transubstantiation or symbolism. But both terms are highly problematic when it comes to describing the Catholic faith in the Eucharist.

(Hendro Munsterman, “The Problem with Transubstantiation”, La Croix International, Nov. 17, 2021)

That’s simply nonsense. No, both terms aren’t “highly problematic”. Transubstantiation is defined dogma, whereas the “symbol” view of the Real Presence is heresy. In neither case is “highly problematic” an apt description. Dogma is not problematic at all, and heresy is a little bit more than just highly problematic.

The Catholic Church, in fact, does not believe in “transubstantiation”. It is term officially adopted in the thirteenth century to sensibly and intelligibly express the mystery of faith that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist under the species of bread and wine.

Catholics believe actually in the real presence. The concept of transubstantiation is merely a theological tool; the best we have.

Or, perhaps, the best we once had.

False! This is a clear and serious error; one that is, however, a very common one among Novus Ordo theologians.

The Catholic Church does in fact believe, not merely in some vague and general “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, but very specifically in the dogma of Transubstantiation, and this dogma must be adhered to not merely as a matter of obedience to the Church but as a matter of divine Faith, “without [which] it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6). The Council of Trent teaches this clearly:

But since Christ, our Redeemer, has said that that is truly His own body which He offered under the species of bread [cf. Matt. 26:26ff.; Mark 14:22ff.; Luke 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor. 11:23 ff.], it has always been a matter of conviction in the Church of God, and now this holy Synod declares it again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion takes place of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is appropriately and properly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.

Can. 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 4, Canon 2; Denz. 877, 884; underlining added.)

That the term “Transubstantiation” genuinely expresses the revealed truth of the matter and is not merely a scholastic or academic “tool” used to explain what in truth does not admit of explanation, was insisted upon by Pope Pius VI. With his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, issued in 1794, Pope Pius condemned the Synod of Pistoia, a diocesan assembly held in northern Italy in 1786. With its ideas for the “reform” of Catholicism, it was a veritable prototype of Vatican II in many ways. The Pope spoke as follows:

The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith, and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,

–dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics.

(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 29; Denz. 1529; underlining added.)

Notice that the Pistoian definition of the Real Presence the Supreme Pontiff assails here does not in fact contain anything positively erroneous. It was condemned on the grounds that it suspiciously omitted what is essential to the integrity of the dogma, namely, the very term “Transubstantiation” and the precise truth it expresses. Inasmuch as he likewise considers the concept of Transubstantiation to be merely a “tool” that is not intrinsic to the truth of the Real Presence, Munsterman falls under the same papal condemnation.

This becomes more apparent as we read the remainder of the Dutch theologian’s article. He writes: “The term has become problematic. Indeed, the word ‘substance’ sounds very different in our ears than it sounded in the ears of our ancestor. For us, the word includes such things as molecules, atoms and matter.”

It is true, and can readily be admitted, that the term “substance” has generally taken on a different meaning in the last few hundred years, compared to how the term was understood in the middle ages. Therefore, someone who is not Catholic, or a catechumen who is insufficiently catechized, may misunderstand what is meant by the “conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood” (Trent). Fair enough.

However, this difficulty is a minor one. There is no need to reinvent the wheel and do what the so-called “Transcendental Thomists” like Karl Rahner have done, that is, come up with an entirely different theology that is based on modern philosophy. It suffices to simply explain the concepts involved thoroughly — in fact, Munsterman himself expounds the basics when he says:

The “substance” of an object, of something that exists, is for [the Greek philosopher] Aristotle everything except its matter and what is visible or tangible about it.

The Greek term he used (ousia), which was later translated into Latin as substantia, is probably best translated in our contemporary language as “being”.

Aristotle, in his attempt to understand reality, distinguished between the so-called “accidents” of an object and its “substance” (being).

The accidents concern everything that has to do with materiality and visibility: color, form, material. For example, the “accidents” of a cupboard may be that it is made of wood, is brown and is 180 centimeters high. But the “substance” or the being of the cupboard does not depend on these accidents.

If, for example, we give the brown cupboard a beautiful blue color with a brush or replace the wooden planks with glass plates, nothing changes in its “substance”, according to Aristotle. It remains “essentially” a cupboard. We could say that only a “trans-accidentation” has taken place.

When Christians come together around bread and wine and the priest presides over this Eucharist on behalf of Christ, all the “accidents” (the material and visible part of bread and wine) remain the same. But the very essence of the bread changes: trans-substantiation.

That’s a fairly decent basic explanation that the average layman can understand. It didn’t take much, did it?

Once the meaning of substance and accidents is clarified, the concept of Transubstantiation is easily understood: When the priest pronounces the words of consecration over bread and wine, their substance is converted into the literal Body and Blood of Christ, although their accidents remain. In other words, while everything about bread and wine that is perceptible to the senses remains as before, that in which these accidents inhere has been converted from bread and wine into Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema” (Trent, Session 13, Canon 1; Denz. 883).

That God can work such a great mystery stands to reason on account of His omnipotence; that He actually does do so at the sacred words of consecration pronounced by the priest during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is a matter of Divine Revelation, hence something that can only be known by Faith.

What utter mystifying nonsense results when one tries to substitute modern philosophy for the common-sense philosophical notions of substance and accidents first introduced by Aristotle, is illustrated very well by the theology of “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Müller:

Jesus takes the gifts of bread and wine into his hands. In this way he unites them directly with his bodily presence. His words of institution make them into signs in which he himself becomes communicable in his entire historical and bodily presence as the Son of the Father. Jesus prays to the Father the prayer of thanksgiving, the Eucharistia. In this grateful abandonment of the eternal and the incarnate Son, he takes bread and wine into his obedience and his love for the Father. He now hands the bread and wine to the disciples. In this offertory gesture his devoted love for us shows itself, as does his willingness to make the offering of his life a sign of the love of God for men, which [love] asserts itself in history. At the same time, however, he allows the disciples to participate in his act of abandonment to the Father for us. Whoever, therefore, consumes these gifts of bread and wine, partakes in a real way of the humanity of Jesus and his entire destiny, that is to say, of his body and blood. He enters thus into the reality of the New Covenant, that is, [into] loving fellowship with God, which has become communicable in the revelation of the unity of love of Father and Son. Thus bread and wine are not, of course, representational symbols [Vertretungssymbole] but reality-symbols [Realsymbole], because they share in the reality-content [Wirklichkeitsgehalt] of the human and bodily self-giving of Jesus and, on account of the words of institution, make this reality present.

(Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Mit der Kirche denken, 2nd ed. [Wurzburg: Johann Wilhelm Naumann, 2002], p. 47. Our translation from the original German.)

In reality, “body and blood of Christ” do not mean the material components of the man Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporeality. Rather, body and blood here mean the presence of Christ in the sign of the medium of bread and wine, which [presence] is made communicable in the here and now of sense-bound human perception. Just as before Easter the disciples were perceptibly together with Jesus by hearing his words and perceiving him in his sensory figure in accordance with human nature, we now have fellowship with Jesus Christ, communicated through the eating and drinking of the bread and the wine.

…The natural substance of these gifts [of bread and wine] does not consist in that which can be examined by natural science as the ultimate building block. The substance of these gifts can only be explained in their relation to man. Thus the determination of substance must begin anthropologically. The natural substance of these gifts as the fruit of the earth and of human labor, as the integrity of a product of nature and culture, consists in showing clearly the nourishment and refreshment of man and the human community under the auspices of the common meal. Of course these gifts are also an indication that our life and the preservation of our being depends upon God, which is why we feel we owe Him our gratitude. These natural substances of bread and wine are converted by God in the sense that the substance of bread and wine now [i.e. after the conversion] consists in indicating and bringing about the saving communion with God which is given in the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection of the Son of God and the sending of the Holy Ghost.

…In other words, the conversion of substance means that bread and wine go from being natural vehicles of communication to being a new way of supernatural communication between God and man, with the goal of transmitting salvation, which occurred in Jesus Christ in a real-historical way. Christ, then, is really present in an objective sense, because it is God alone who fixes the absolute horizon, before which the reality of the world and history and the manner of his self-communication can be contemplated.

(Gerhard L. Müller, The Mass: Source of Christian Life, pp. 139-141. Our translation from the original German.)

Do you understand the dogma of the Real Presence better now?

Didn’t think so. Muller’s oh-so “advanced” theology is a hopeless mess of profound-sounding gobbledygook in the style of Karl Rahner, whose disciple Muller is via his mentor, the late “Cardinal” Karl Lehmann.

The fact is that, given a little bit of instruction, modern man can easily grasp what the Aristotelian-philosophical notions of substance and accidents mean because these concepts are deduced from reality. They are not simply a “tool” or “model” we dream up to explain something that is ultimately inexplicable. Rather, they are concepts that are drawn from a reflection on reality.

In his landmark encyclical against the New Theology and the renascent Modernism of his time, Pope Pius XII made this very point and condemned the idea that the philosophical concepts underlying Catholic dogma could just be exchanged for new ones, in keeping with whatever the latest philosophical trends happened to be:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, nn. 14-18; underlining added.)

In the same encyclical, Pius XII addressed the topic of Transubstantiation directly, which was being attacked with false notions such as Rahner’s “Transfinalization” and Edward Schillebeeckx’s “Transignification”:

Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 26; underlining added.)

If we are looking for an accurate label to stick on the Müllerite version of the Real Presence, perhaps the term “Transcommunication” would describe it adequately, since he appears to be saying that in the Eucharist, God chooses bread and wine to communicate His Presence. But whatever the most accurate term for the Mullerite concept may be, it is most certainly not Transubstantiation, which, however, is the Catholic dogma. And, as the First Vatican Council emphasized, “that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter 4; Denz. 1800).

There is simply no way around it: The only orthodox view of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is that of Transubstantiation, and it is that view which must be embraced under pain of mortal sin, under pain of heresy, under pain of loss of Church membership, and under pain of eternal damnation. Munsterman, therefore, is dead wrong when he asserts: “The Catholic Church, in fact, does not believe in ‘transubstantiation’. … Catholics believe actually in the real presence. The concept of transubstantiation is merely a theological tool; the best we have.”

Countless Protestants, too, believe in what they likewise call the “Real Presence” — but they reject Transubstantiation, or make it merely one possible (and therefore optional) explanation among many. Lutherans, for example, believe in Consubstantiation, which is a “heretical doctrine [that] is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation”, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains. Only Transubstantiation explains in what way Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist, namely, truly and substantially, with His literal Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, while all that remains of bread and wine is the outward appearances. That, and that alone, is the Real Eucharistic Presence of Christ.

Towards the end of his write-up, the Dutch theologian cranks out a truly bizarre statement. He asserts: “Transubstantiation can be felt only by people who know and believe inwardly that reality is not limited to its materiality. Indeed: that requires faith.” This is sheer nonsense.

First of all, Transubstantiation cannot be “felt”. It is something to know, understand, and assent to, not something to feel. It pertains to the intellect, not to the emotions. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Secondly, to hold that “reality is not limited to its materiality” does not require Faith. It is a matter of reason, and thus it is a truth equally accessible to believer and non-believer alike. One need not have the virtue of Faith to know that reality is more than just matter, more than just what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, and felt. In fact, in proving the truth of the Roman Catholic religion, one of the first things to do is to prove from reason alone the existence of an immaterial soul. For example, Fr. Anthony Alexander’s 1954 book College Apologetics discusses it in Chapter 3:

Free electronic borrowing: College Apologetics: Proof of the Truth of the Catholic Faith
Purchase: College Apologetics: Proof of the Truth of the Catholic Faith (Novus Ordo Watch commission link)

What Munsterman is saying — and he may not even realize this — is that reason tells every man to be a Materialist, and only the Catholic Faith can free him from this mistaken notion and allow him to accept immaterial reality as well. However, such a view of things is absurd and impossible, indeed heretical, for it denies that the existence of God can be proved from reason alone (cf. Vatican I, Dei Filius; Denz. 1806), it denies the possibility of natural theology (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 6), and it implies the heresy of Fideism, which is a very popular one among Novus Ordos.

Munsterman continues:

The term “symbol” is equally problematic. In general language, it is understood as a synonym for “not real”. But in the philosophical and Christian traditions, the term is used in a different way.

Namely, if we use “symbol” as referring to “things, places, events or persons that mediate a presence and an awareness of another reality,” it is a word that can also express something of the mystery of Christ’s real presence.

An everyday contemporary dictionary defines “symbol” as “something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.”

Pope Pius XII was rather clear when he rejected attempts to reduce the Real Presence of Christ from Transubstantiation “to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body” (Humani Generis, n. 26).

Munsterman’s gobbledygook about symbols “mediating a presence and an awareness of another reality” is conveniently vague enough for him to be able to claim that it “can also express something of the mystery of Christ’s real presence”, but that’s simply not adequate. We’re not interested in “expressing something” about Christ’s Real Presence, we’re interested in a true statement of the reality of what takes place at the consecration of the Holy Mass. As we have seen, the only acceptable and correct way to express that is the dogma of Transubstantiation.

The Dutch writer concludes:

Ultimately, of course, the mystery of faith cannot be adequately expressed in words. The Eucharistic mystery of Christ’s real presence cannot be explained. It has to be celebrated and experienced as a grace-filled mystery that, while ultimately transcending all understanding, truly makes one live. That’s because in faith we know Christ[‘s] presence, not beside or above reality, but in it and through it.

This is more obfuscation at the expense of truth and clarity. To say that the Faith cannot ever be adequately expressed in human words is true, but it is not legitimate to infer from this that therefore the “Eucharistic mystery of Christ’s real presence cannot be explained”, which is false. The First Vatican Council taught:

And, indeed, reason illustrated by faith, when it zealously, piously, and soberly seeks, attains with the help of God some understanding of the mysteries, and that a most profitable one, not only from the analogy of those things which it knows naturally, but also from the connection of the mysteries among themselves and with the last end of man; nevertheless, it is never capable of perceiving those mysteries in the way it does the truths which constitute its own proper object. For, divine mysteries by their nature exceed the created intellect so much that, even when handed down by revelation and accepted by faith, they nevertheless remain covered by the veil of faith itself, and wrapped in a certain mist, as it were, as long as in this mortal life, “we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith and not by sight” [2 Cor. 5:6f.].

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter 4; Denz. 1796; underlining added.)

As is typical for Novus Ordo Neo-Modernists, after claiming that the Real Presence cannot be explained (objectively), Munsterman tries to soften his outrageous blow by appealing to subjective experience: “It has to be celebrated and experienced….”

No, experience has nothing to do with it. You cannot “feel” or “sense” your way to the Real Presence. And as far as celebration goes, well, the way they “celebrate Mass” in the Vatican II Church doesn’t exactly scream: “We believe that the Son of God is truly present here”…

Image source: shutterstock.com (Thoom)
License: paid

Share this content now:

Is there a “Problem” with Transubstantiation? Response to Hendro Munsterman