Biblical Proof for Transubstantiation and the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass from Melchizedek and the Last Supper in 7 Points

Here I provide the theological argument of my book Melchizedek and the Last Supper in 7 points.

  • The priesthood of the Mosaic covenant was instituted with Aaron as the first High Priest 430 years after the life of the founding father of Israel, Abraham. According to the New Testament, the Law and the Prophets foretold the temporal expiration of the Aaronic priesthood by way of foretelling of a coming priesthood of a different order than that which pertained to Aaron and the Levites. This new order of priesthood was foretold specifically by King David in Psalm 110 where the coming Messianic King is said to be a priest without end of term according to the order of Melchizedek. This is speaking of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  • According to the letter to the Hebrews, a change in priesthood necessarily comes with a change in the covenantal law itself. Therefore, this foretelling of a new priesthood to come also foretells the expiration of the whole Covenant given on Mount Sinai. The Lord Jesus thus inaugurated a New Covenant in the final supper he had with His disciples in Jerusalem.
  • Christ introduces the New Covenant by means of a priestly form that is ordered off that of Melchizedek. Now, Melchizedek shows up in the Law as a King-Priest of Salem (Jerusalem), receives tithes from Abraham (the forefather of Israel), blessed him, and brings forth bread and wine. Christ, in His very action as Priest and Testator of the New Covenant, brings forth bread and wine, following the pattern of Melchizedek.
  • The Catholic & Eastern Orthodox tradition, following the implications of biblical typology and the constant confession of the Patristic witness, sees the bread and wine of Melchizedek in the Torah as the object of sacrifice in His priesthood. In other words, Melchizedek’s offering was bread and wine, i.e., a food offering. It would be unfitting for Melchizedek to have been one to offer bulls, rams, calves, and goats since Christ’s offering, which is patterned off Melchizedek, abrogated the system of animal sacrifices.
  • The New Testament teaches that its sacrifice is the very body of Christ the High Priest Himself. No other item included. The New Covenant sacrifice is singular, Christ’s body and blood alone. And yet, in order to fulfill the Melchizedekian order, Christ’s priesthood must involve the offering of bread and wine. Somehow, the bread and wine brought forth by Christ at the inauguration of the New Covenant at the Last Supper must identify with the body of Christ Himself. It is to no surprise, then, that Christ takes the bread and wine and proclaims that they are, in fact, His very body and blood.
  • However, in order for the sacrifice of the New Covenant to retains its singularity in Christ’s body and blood, the bread, wine, body, and blood of Christ cannot retain their numeric distinctions, such that Christ offers up bread plus wine plus Himself. Therefore, the real presence of bread and wine must be extinguished in order to make way for the real presence of Christ body and blood in the visible elements of bread and wine. The remaining appearance, sense, feel, and taste of bread and wine suffice to maintain the Melchizedekian pattern, though fulfilled by the necessary condition of the Priesthood of Christ as the fulfillment of all old types in the Hebrew Scriptures.
  • If all of the above follow, then the Catholic & Orthodox doctrine of transubstantiation is thereby proven biblical. Also, because the body of Christ is offered in the Supper, the celebration of the Supper must be a propitiatory sacrifice, since Christ’s sacrifice is propitiatory.

2 thoughts on “Biblical Proof for Transubstantiation and the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass from Melchizedek and the Last Supper in 7 Points

  1. This would only get us as far as Radbert and Ratramnus. To what degree is the sacrificial anamnesis an offering of the substantial body and blood of Christ, is the type of signification Aristotelian and Realist or Neoplatonic and Mystical or Nominalistic and purely representative psychologically? It’s a good start, but it doesn’t end in a clear affirmation on the historicity of the body offered in the Eucharist or the dimensive quality, or whether it is by substantial conversion or adduction. This just ends in an affirmation of a potentially real presence.

    It goes back to the question- “What is the significance of the blood of Christ entering my stomach”?

    • I think if we give as the definition of *what* to the host as something besides the *true* and *real* *substance* (is-ness) of Christ’s sacred humanity, then we posit another kind of body (a tertium quid) between the mystical body and the humanity of Christ. There are some problems with this because New Testament theology only teaches that the mystical body feeds off the sacred humanity of Christ *as it is substantially*. If we come up with some third explanation, like a spiritual body of Jesus, then our theology shifts from benefitting from this third reality rather than the substantial reality. At the very least, it seems like eisogetical innovation for no good reason.

      Rather, we only need the philosophy of the Jerusalemite catechesis from St. Cyril to help us:

      “Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ” (Lecture 22, Mystagogical Catechesis).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s