Protestantism, Matthew 16, and Transubstantiation

Disclaimer: I am not a Thomist, nor have I read St. Thomas Aquinas deeply. I simply thought his style looked cool.

What this letter will cover:

1. Whether the falsity of Catholicism means Protestantism is the default.
2. Whether Matthew 16 does not allow an interpretation for the papacy, because it seems the Holy Spirit intended Petros and Petra to be separated.
3. Whether one can bring about transubstantiation “in the heart.”

Whether the falsity of Catholicism means Protestantism is true

Objections

It seems that Protestantism is true, because specific Catholic doctrines are not so obvious to the mind. Therefore, one should reasonably default to Protestantism.

Further, it seems that if one Catholic doctrine is false, then the entirety of Catholicism is false. If this is the case, then Protestantism is true.

On the Contrary

The Church, as the Apostle says, is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

Reply to objections.

Objection 1: I answer that Catholic doctrines which aren’t obvious to the mind are a fact about the person receiving the information rather than a fact about the doctrine itself. The Muslim who cannot grasp the Triune God does not prove the Blessed Trinity false; therefore, the Protestant who cannot grasp Catholic doctrine would not prove Catholicism false nor justify belief in Protestantism.

Further, proving a positive proposition false does not allow a logical default to another positive claim. The only logical conclusion would be to accept the contradiction. However, Protestantism is not in opposition to Catholicism, for there are many agreements between the two denominations, like that Christ is Lord and He died for our sins.

Further, the methodology of choosing Churches via self-interpretation is not epistemologically sound. For the noetic effects of sin can steer one away from Truth. Without the Holy Spirit guiding the Christian, the Christian will more often than not fall into false beliefs about Christianity. If the Protestant wants to claim the Holy Spirit is guiding him, he will have to prove why the Holy Spirit guided him to truth and steered the thousands of other Protestant denominations away from truth, given his sin. Such a burden of proof is so high that the probability of Catholic doctrine being true, with all evidence being equal, is much higher than the particular Protestant’s beliefs.

Objection 2: As far as the Church is concerned, no Catholic doctrine has ever been “proven false” and is only the claim of those with prior anti-Catholic beliefs. Yes, it is true that if a Catholic dogma has been proven to be false, this would falsify the claim the Church has made in Her wisdom that Sacred Doctrine and the Magisterium are infallible on such issues. However, while sophisticated attempts have been made to attack particular dogmas, each particular attempt has ultimately failed since the Catholic Church is still standing to this day. In this scenario, the burden of proof is not on the Catholic to “prove their doctrines true,” but rather, it is up to the Protestant to prove them false. Thus, it would be invalid to ask me to prove that none of the Catholic doctrines are false.

Whether Matthew 16 does not allow an interpretation for the papacy, because it seems the Holy Spirit intended Petros and Petra to be separated

Objection

It seems that Matthew 16 does not allow Catholics to interpret it as vindicating the papacy, for our Lord and the Holy Spirit distinguish between Petros (small rock) and Petra (big rock).

On the contrary

The Prophet Isaiah says, “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Isaiah 22:20-22)

Reply to objection

I answer that the Lord does not distinguish between Petros and Petra, for our Lord spoke these words in Aramaic. This is evident in the letters of St. Paul, who addresses St. Peter as “Cephas.” The word “Rock” in Aramaic is thus used twice on purpose to emphasize St. Peter as the foundation of His Church, so our Lord said, “You are Kephas, and on this Kephas, I will build My Church.”

Further, regarding name changes, when someone has their name changed in the Scriptures, it means God is giving them a great mission related to that name change. He changed Abrahm’s name to Abraham, “the father of a multitude of nations.” Likewise, Peter was given the divine mission of being the rock of the Church.

Further, concerning why the distinction is made in the Greek, Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullmann says on the matter:

… the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he have given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of his ecclesia.

Cullmann, Oscar. Theological Dictionary, Vol. 6, eds. Page 108

Joe Heschemeyer says,

… why doesn’t Matthew say petra both times? Because, unlike Aramaic or English, Greek words have genders… By the time Matthew wrote his Gospel, everyone knew Peter as Petros. When the angel appears to Cornelius, he tells him to “send men to Joppa, and bring one Simon who is called Peter [Petros]” (Acts 10:5). Paul refers to him either as Cephas (from the Aramaic) or as Petros (Gal. 2:7-8). Most importantly, Petros is how St. Peter introduces himself in 1 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:1. In that case, why not use petros both times? Because petros was no longer a regular part of ordinary Greek vocabulary… By the time St. Matthew writes his Gospel, Petros is how Peter introduces himself, but petros isn’t a commonly used word for rock anymore, so Matthew translates the Aramaic using the best options open to him: by using the commonly used Greek name for Peter and the commonly used Greek word for a large rock.

Heschmeyer, Joe. Pope Peter, pg 154

To argue that the distinction was guided by the Holy Spirit, one would have to argue the Son and the Spirit do not share the same divine Will.

The argument goes as follows:

1. The Trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- share the same divine Will.
2. The Son called Peter “Kephas” and said, “On this Kephas I will build my Church.” Meaning it was the Son’s Will to make St. Peter the rock of His Church.
3. Therefore, it is in the Will of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that St. Peter is the rock of the Church.

The only move that doesn’t fall into Trinitarian heresies would be to deny premise 2. However, if Jesus truly intended to distinguish between St. Peter, the Rock, and His Church, the rock, one would expect Him to use different words in Aramaic. But He did not; thus, it was not in the will of the Son to make the distinction, and thus, it was not in the will of the Holy Spirit.

Whether one can bring about Transubstantiation “in the heart”

Objections

It seems that Christ is fully present in the bread at the Protestant church, for our Lord said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” Therefore, Christ is transubstantiated in the bread at the Protestant church.

Further, God is omnipresent. If God is fully present everywhere, then this includes the bread at the Protestant church. Therefore, God is transubstantiated in the bread at the Protestant church.

Further, our Lord says, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” If I ask Jesus to be in the bread at the Protestant church, He will do so. Therefore, Jesus is transubstantiated in the bread at the Protestant church.

On the contrary

As the Gospel of Matthew says, “And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Reply to objections

Objections 1 & 2: The first two objections fail to understand the nature of God’s omnipresence, and the nature of substances. God’s omnipresence does not presuppose that God is substantially in everything. If we suppose it were true, then it follows that every object is God, which is not only gravely false, but heretical. God’s creation is fully distinct from Himself; therefore, God cannot be presupposed to be within the bread in the Protestant church, since it is merely the substance of bread. A miracle must be performed to change the substance of bread into Christ.

As to how God can be omnipresent without being the substance in everything: God’s omnipresence does presuppose the condition that all of creation subsists in existence due to His nature of being the creator. By sustaining the existence of any creation, God is always present there.

Objection 3: To ask our Lord to become transubstantiated in the bread at a Protestant service fails to grasp the authority the individual has. Our Lord gave St. Peter the keys, and gave the Apostles authority to teach and to forgive sins. He did not bestow this authority on the entire royal priesthood (which includes the laity). Though, as of now, it is not fair to assume that it is the Catholic Church that has the burden of proof on this matter. For the idea that one can consecrate the bread in their heart requires evidence.

Nowhere in Church history or in Holy Scripture is it found that each individual Christian has the authority to consecrate Christ in the Eucharist. Our royal priesthood does not presuppose this, as the laity could abuse this Sacrament. The Body and Blood of Christ cannot be found in a bag of Doritos. Yet, this doctrine of loose authority logically entails that this is possible, which is enough to prove the doctrine false.

The consecrated bread can only be brought about by a member of the ministerial priesthood, given authority by the successors of the Apostles, whom Christ gave authority to “bind and loose” (Matthew 16:19) and to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). Even within Protestantism, there are those who hold to a similar structure of only allowing those part of the ministerial priesthood to consecrate the bread (e.g., Lutherans and Anglicans). Those who reject this structure are evidently opposed to Transubstantiation.