Redeemed Zoomer's Hypocritical Theology

A Defense of Transubstantiation

Introduction

On Monday of this week, Redeemed Zoomer released a video titled “John 6 DEBUNKS Transubstantiation!“ In this video, as the title indicates, Zoomer attempted to refute Catholicism on the basis of John 6. His argument was essentially as follows: in John 6, Our Lord states that all those who eat His flesh and drink His blood have life in them. Yet, according to transubstantiation, there are those who eat His flesh and drink His blood who do not have life in them. Therefore, transubstantiation is false.

Then, Thursday morning, I released a response to this video. In this response, I showed that Zoomer: (1) was completely inconsistent in how he interprets this passage, and (2) did not properly understand the Catholic position. He was completely inconsistent because he interprets “eat” and “drink” in this passage against Catholics as eating and drinking in general, yet he interprets “eat” and “drink” in this passage in defense of his own position as referring to worthily partaking of the sacrament. He did not properly understand the Catholic position because he falsely claimed that we concede that unbelievers receive the reality of the sacrament, when in fact we only claim that they validly receive the sacrament (a distinction that has been present among Catholic theologians since the Patristic era). If you want to hear about these points in more detail, check out my response video titled “Redeemed Zoomer Just Made a Huge Mistake.”

That evening, Zoomer released a response video attempting to defend his original position. Near the very end, he takes up my response to his original video. His reply suffers from the same inconsistency and poor research as his original video. Zoomer is condemned by his own accusations against us by the very manner in which he answers objections against his own doctrine. While any distinction made by scholastic authors — following the Holy Fathers and necessary reasons — is arbitrarily labeled as “theologically irresponsible” and “forcing a paradigm,” any distinction made by Zoomer himself is treated as perfectly acceptable.

Unfortunately, as of the posting of this article, Zoomer has placed the video behind a paywall. Originally, the video was publicly available for several hours and was watched by nearly 10,000 viewers, including myself. Hence, while I will obviously not post clips, I will provide quotations in order to respond to the objections raised against my response.

Misunderstanding the Response

First, it is important to note that Zoomer did not even properly understand the response I gave in my video. He represented my response as: “there are some people who eat the true Body and Blood of Christ outwardly, yet it is to their judgment because they are not inwardly partaking of the benefits.” Hence, he thinks it is a sufficient response to the Catholic view to point out that “there is one way to eat the Body of Christ. The reason we believe this is that Scripture does not warrant any distinction between different ways of eating the Body of Christ. There is no Scripture passage that indicates that unbelievers eat the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Here, Zoomer shows that he did not even understand the response to his video in the first place. To explain the distinctions again:

Sacramentum tantum: The species of bread and wine.

Res sacramenti: The Body and Blood of Christ.

Hence, when we use the phrase carnal mastication or sacramental eating, we say that the individual has validly received the sacrament (since the sacrament is not merely found in its use), but we completely deny that he has received the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, to interpret the response as “there are some people who eat the true Body and Blood of Christ outwardly” is to completely misunderstand what is being said. In this case, the Body and Blood of Christ are not received — they are profaned. This is what was clearly stated by Ss. Thomas and Bonaventure in the quotations given in my video.

Objection. Does this not contradict transubstantiation?

Response. No, it does not. This is why I said that the central misunderstanding underlying these sorts of arguments against transubstantiation is an overly materialistic understanding of “substance” when we speak about the Eucharist. The substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is not some sort of body extended into space with three dimensions. To hold this would be to attribute accidents to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament — namely, dimensive quantity. Hence, theologians rejected the opinions of Walter of Saint Victor and Abbot Abbaudus as heretical when they maintained that the fracturing of the bread in the Eucharist fractured the Body of Christ in itself. While we may speak of a certain communicatio idiomatum between the actions on the species of bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ, properly speaking, the sole subject of these external passions is the sacramental species itself (the sacramentum) and not the Body and Blood of Christ (the res sacramenti). If I were to cut or burn the sacramental species, I would be profaning the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of the sacramental union between the species and Christ, but I would not be cutting or burning Christ as the subject of cutting or burning.

There are three errors opposed to Catholic dogma that are relevant here. First, there are those who hold that the presence of Christ is only in the use of the sacrament. Second, there are those who hold that the unbeliever does not validly receive the sacrament. Third, there are those who hold that the presence of Christ ceases to exist under the sacramental species once it touches the lips of the unbeliever (cf. ST III, Q. 80, A. 3).

Exegesis of John 6, pt. 1: Sacrament and Reality

It is this point that makes the Catholic exegesis of the passage so convincing. Redeemed Zoomer claims that I am “adding distinctions” that Jesus does not make in this passage:

“This is probably the best counterargument against mine, but it still inserts a distinction that Jesus does not make. Jesus does not say, ‘Everyone who eats my flesh spiritually has eternal life, but there is a different way to eat my flesh where you might not have eternal life.’ He doesn’t say that. It is theologically irresponsible to insert distinctions where the text does not demand them. Scholastic theology does this all the time — you can get out of any theological dilemma by making enough distinctions. And this is similar to what liberal, gay-affirming theologians do. I’m not saying these Catholics are being like the liberals, but it is a similar move: making arbitrary distinctions just to fit your paradigm when the text does not actually demand those distinctions.”

Yet, if one is a careful exegete of verses 53–56 (as St. Augustine was, whom Zoomer quotes in vain) this understanding of the passage is quite clear and flows from the text itself. In this section, where the necessity and efficacy of the flesh and blood of Christ is forcefully emphasized, Christ does not speak of the sacramentum (”unless you receive the Eucharistic species,” “he who eats the Eucharistic species,” etc.), but of the res sacramenti (”unless you eat the flesh,” “he who eats my flesh,” etc.). In the very passages that Zoomer quotes, it is quite clear that the res sacramenti is being spoken of, not simply the sacramentum.

Following the exegesis of the Fathers and being careful readers of the text is not what “liberal, gay-affirming theologians do,” that is what intelligent and responsible exegetes do when drawing conclusions. Interestingly, it is actually Zoomer who acts as “liberal, gay-affirming theologians do” in his methodology: ideologically adhering to an interpretation of a text that is not carefully demonstrated, for polemical reasons, while making solely rhetorical points against any pushback. Quite subversive, if you ask me.

Objection. Does this not deny the teaching of the Fathers that this passage is Eucharistic?

Response. This misunderstands the position. Catholic authors who exegete the passage in this way are not saying that the passage is not Eucharistic. In fact, they are forcefully affirming that it is Eucharistic. Rather, we are asking a question about what the object of eating and drinking is in these verses. Did Jesus intend to say that all those who eat or drink the sacramental species have eternal life? Did Jesus intend to say that without eating or drinking the sacramental species, one has no eternal life in him? Or did Jesus mean to say that all those who receive the res sacramenti — that is, His Body and Blood — have eternal life, and that such is necessary for eternal life?

If one takes what the text actually says, then it is obviously the latter:

V. 53–54: “Truly, truly, I say to you, 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.”

V. 56: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

It is in this way that St. Fulgentius, when asked about the fate of the baptized who had not received the Eucharist, interpreted John 6 and St. Augustine’s writings:

“There should be no doubt for anyone that each one of the faithful becomes a sharer in the Body and Blood of the Lord [i.e., the res sacramenti] when he is made a member of the Body of Christ in Baptism and is not alienated from the fellowship of that bread and cup [i.e., excommunicated], even if, before he eats that bread and drinks that cup [i.e., participates in the sacramentum], he leaves this world in the unity of the Body of Christ. He is not deprived of the participation in and benefit of that sacrament when he is that which the sacrament signifies.” (Ep. 12, n. 26; NOTE: St Fulgentius, as Ss. Augustine, Thomas, and others also take the res sacramenti in an ecclesial sense since we become the mystical body of Christ through the sacramental body of Christ)

Further, this is the clear reading of St. Augustine, who states that the “flesh” and “blood” in this passage refer to that which the sacrament signifies:

“Whoever does not remain in Christ and in whom Christ does not remain, without doubt neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood; but rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a reality unto his own judgment, because, being unclean, he has presumed to approach the Sacraments of Christ, which no one receives worthily unless he is clean…” (Tractate 26, n. 18)

Here, it is impossible to interpret St. Augustine as reading “flesh” and “blood” as simply referring to the sacramentum. Yet he is equally clear that the sacramentum is the sign of the reality being spoken of (as appears clearly from the whole passage). Hence, according to his own words, “flesh” and “blood” refer to the res sacramenti rather than simply to the sacramentum. This interpretation of St. Augustine’s Eucharistic theology is fairly standard even among Protestant theologians (cf. Schaff).

It seems that Zoomer, despite posturing about how much he knows about his own tradition, is completely unaware that Reformed Eucharistic theology employs the very distinction between the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. In fact, this is the central lens through which the Reformed view the nature of the sacraments: as a sacramental union between sign and thing signified. While this is present in virtually every author on this matter, the Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes the point as follows:

“There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other.” (27.2)

Exegesis of John 6, pt. 2: Spiritual and Carnal Eating

Yet it is not only the distinction between res sacramenti and sacramentum that Zoomer has a problem with, it is also the distinction between carnal mastication and spiritual mastication. To clarify another misunderstanding (which should have been clear enough from my original video and the very terms used): carnal mastication is to the sacramentum what spiritual mastication is to the res sacramenti. Properly speaking, the wicked do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ except per accidens (insofar as there is a sacramental union between species and substance) and sacramentally. They press between their teeth the sacramental species, under which the Body and Blood of Christ are present (cf. the three errors against Transubstantiation given above). It is only by a certain communicatio idiomatum that we could refer to it in any other way. Again, if one properly understands the concept of “substance,” there is no difficulty here.

Zoomer’s denial and misunderstanding of the distinction between the two kinds of mastication was completely shocking to me. How does he not see the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and rupture with his own tradition in making this point? If you open any Reformed author on John 6, he interprets “eat” and “drink” as referring to spiritual eating and drinking with faith. Even those Reformed authors who do not interpret the passage as Eucharistic will still interpret “eat” and “drink” in this way. In fact, in my original video, I quoted two authors on the passage to show this point on both interpretations.

Zoomer has effectively abandoned any claim to continuity with his own tradition in order to pass a second-rate argument on a YouTube video — quite a sin against piety toward one’s forefathers, if you ask me. It is here that we see how vain the appeal to the Fathers is for Zoomer. It is a rhetorical tool used against simple, earnest people seeking the truth. He will attempt to appeal to St. Augustine on the distinction between sacramentum and res sacramenti in order to confuse people into thinking that this distinction is a denial of transubstantiation, while simultaneously denying the relevance of that very distinction when I employ it to exegete the passage, not understanding that this is precisely the context of the citation he gave of St. Augustine’s comments concerning “pressing the Sacrament between the teeth.” Quite a mess.

Yet he does not realize that St. Augustine (in union with the Fathers, Catholic exegetes, and Reformed exegetes alike) interprets the “eating” and “drinking” as spiritual mastication:

“Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament [i.e., sacramentum] is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament [i.e., res sacramenti] another. How many receive at the altar and die — and die indeed by receiving? Whence the Apostle says, ‘eats and drinks judgment to himself’… See then, brethren, that you eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar.” (Tractate 26, n. 11)

According to Zoomer, this exegesis is comparable to that of “gay-affirming liberal theologians.” Why, then, Zoomer, did you quote this very Tractate in your video while also denying the distinctions between sacramentum and res sacramenti, and between spiritual and carnal mastication? It is quite obvious that he did not even read this Tractate before quoting it; or, if he did, then he either has poor reading comprehension or is quite boldly being dishonest. I will let the reader decide whether he is, as Zoomer accused St. Francis de Sales of being, a “moron” or “liar.”

Yet, like the distinction given in the previous section, this distinction too is clear from a serene, non-polemical exegesis of the text. The statements on eating His flesh and drinking His blood do not occur in a vacuum. They are preceded by a discourse on Christ as the Bread of Life. Throughout this section, there is a consistent interchange between the command to eat the bread and the command to believe: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (v. 29) Later, He makes this even more explicit: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life… This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.” (vv. 47, 50)

These concepts (belief and eating) are very explicitly connected throughout the entire chapter. It would be quite strained to interpret “eating” as referring merely to any sort of carnal mastication, such as could be performed even by irrational animals. Rather, the “eating” in view is an eating that proceeds from faith.

Hypocritical methodology

This becomes even more frustrating when he concedes that distinctions can be made where another text provides the contextualizing warrant:

“An example of when the text does demand a distinction is when Paul says, ‘We are justified by faith and not by works,’ and James says, ‘We are justified by works and not by faith alone.’ That demands a distinction, if we all believe the Bible is infallible, because without making distinctions in the way they use the words faith, justification, and works, we have a contradiction. But there is no contradiction if you interpret John 6 at face value without making a distinction between different types of eating the Body and Blood of Christ.”

How could I not claim the same warrant for both of the distinctions I made?

First, “eating” can refer either to carnal mastication or to spiritual mastication. Now, if it referred to carnal mastication, then there could be those with eternal life without faith — contrary to John 3:18: “He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Therefore, it refers to spiritual mastication, as taught by the Fathers, theologians, and the Reformed alike.

Second, “flesh” and “blood” can refer either to the sacramentum or to the res sacramenti. Now, if it referred to the sacramentum, this would be contrary to two sets of texts from Scripture. (α) It is contrary to the example of Judas (and of many reprobate) who received the Sacrament yet was damned: “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” (Mt. 26:24) (β) It is contrary to the text of 1 Corinthians 11, which states that there are those who receive the sacramentum to their own judgment precisely because of their profanation of the res sacramenti: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (v. 27)

To the second set of texts, Zoomer answers that all those he wrote to were elect:

“Paul is not necessarily addressing unbelievers. Paul is not necessarily addressing people who don’t have faith or don’t have eternal life. It would make perfect sense to assume he is writing to believers who do have faith in Christ and do have eternal life, but who are still taking the Eucharist in a sinful manner.”

This is where the accusations of “adding distinctions” and “reading into the text” wear thin. How can he accuse the Scholastics of this, when Zoomer simply asserts (with no argument) that every member of the Corinthian congregation had eternal life? How would it be in any way reasonable to assume that there was not a single reprobate in the entire congregation?

This is also simply bad exegesis. First, if we read the context of the entire epistle, there are many passages that threaten damnation to the hearers, presupposing that there are either actually or potentially reprobate in the audience. Second, the passage itself refutes this view. The verse quoted from verse 29 (”any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself”) is parallel with verse 32: “we are chastened so that we may not be judged along with the world.” Clearly, the assumption is that there are actually or potentially those who will be damned in the audience, since “the judgment of the world” is clearly a reference to damnation. Hence, the chastening is necessary to exhort them to avoid sin.

Yet, funnily enough, Zoomer himself offers an interpretation of this passage under the assumption that it refers to unbelievers rather than believers. Can you guess what his interpretation was? The unbelievers are truly eating the sacrament, but not the Body and Blood of Christ. Sound familiar? If only Zoomer had listened more carefully to what I had to say:

“But let’s say hypothetically that they were unbelievers who did not have true faith. It still does not say they were actually consuming the real Body and Blood of Christ. It says they were consuming the bread and the cup and sinning against the Body and Blood of Christ… You could interpret this passage either way: either they are sinning against the Body and Blood of Christ by eating it in an irreverent manner, or they are sinning against it by eating the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ while rejecting the Body and Blood of Christ itself. The passage never says they are actually eating the Body of Christ or drinking His Blood.”

It almost seems as though the unbelievers are eating the sacramentum without eating the res sacramenti. Very interesting! If only Catholics could agree with this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:

“There are two ways of receiving this sacrament, namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Therefore, some receive sacramentally and spiritually, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they also share in the rem sacramenti… But some receive only sacramentally, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they do not have the rem sacramenti.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, In 1 Cor., C. 11, L. 7, n. 698)

Beyond this, I can point to other instances where Zoomer employs what he himself calls the “gay-affirming” methodology. First, in his assertion (offered with no proof) that the sacrament is a mere instrument of the benefits of Christ (which, for what it is worth, is in my opinion a poor representation of Reformed Eucharistic theology). Second, in his unsubstantiated appeals to Reformed distinctives when faced with objections against his own doctrine, for example, his appeal to the concept of evanescent grace when confronted with an objection in his video.

Beyond these points, Zoomer does not seem to understand how to respond to an argument, or else he is pretending not to understand why I responded to his video the way I did, namely by explaining Catholic distinctives. Zoomer made a critique of Catholicism in the following form: transubstantiation teaches X; X is contrary to Scripture; therefore, transubstantiation is contrary to Scripture.

There are two ways of responding to this sort of argument. Either I could explain why the major premise is wrong (that is, that transubstantiation does not in fact teach X) or I could explain why the minor premise is wrong (that is, why X is not contrary to Scripture). My response relied substantially on replying to the major premise, explaining how there are aspects of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine that Zoomer did not properly represent. This is not “being arbitrary,” this is doing exactly what everyone, including Zoomer himself, does when faced with an argument: explaining one’s own position properly. This is something he demands of others yet does not practice himself.