Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:

By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the 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 change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV)

As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I)

It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential.

Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation:

There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?

Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.

In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?

Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.

(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)

This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.

There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.

And then there's the fact that the RCC calls the sacrifice of the mass an unbloody sacrifice,which is really no sacrifice at all.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."188

Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.

When Christ died, His blood was poured out as was required by the law.

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Since without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins, a bloodless sacrifice is a useless one. It cannot atone for sin.

Jesus commanded His disciples to drink the cup. Catholics claim that doing so is partaking of the literal body and blood of Himself. However, if the mass is an unbloody sacrifice, where does the blood for the cup come from?

Which body of Christ is the priest sacrificing in the mass? The old one that walked this earth?

Or the new resurrected and glorified one? The Bible is very clear that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. (Hebrews 9:22)

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” (Leviticus 17:11)

Despite the clear teaching of Scripture, Rome has an “unbloody sacrifice.” They say it’s a propitiatory sacrifice, but the Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. So not only is it unnecessary to sacrifice Christ again and again, but an unbloody sacrifice is worthless to make atonement for sin. An unbloody sacrifice is no sacrifice at all! (By .45 Long Colt)

Jesus said it. John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him> right there Jesus says eating His flesh is of no profit because you cannot eat the spirit into you.

God's Life, the Spirit of Life comes in not by mouth, eating the flesh, for Jesus explained to His disciples that the entire scene in John 6 is not about the flesh but the spirit: eating the flesh, as He used in sarcasm with the ones He knew were not going to stick with the mission, eating the actual flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit Who makes alive. And He said His words are spirit and truth.

Humans have inherited a dead spirit from Adam. By the blood of Christ shed in His death, the atonement Has been made for all forever. That atonement allows The righteousness of God to be deposited in your suddenly clean human spirit by the presence of the Holy Spirit spark. You cannot eat that spark into you. Only God puts His life in anyone. See the example of this phenomenon at the day of Pentecost preaching and in the House of Cornelius.

God's Spirit comes into those believers because they did something very similar if not exactly like what Moses prefigured with the brass snake in the desert, to heal the poisonous bite of vipers killing Israelites.+- And we may be certain this is to be seen as comparative because that is the lesson Jesus gave to Nicodemus in John 3.

You may know the truth better than I, but I'll need some persuading that you know Aquinas better than I.

Thomas Aquinas took the position that Christ is not present "locally." But by that he did he deny that Christ's presence is physical?

But again, the physical presence of the risen Christ is something different, something new. The risen Lord enters into our midst. And then we can do no other than say, with Saint Thomas: my Lord and my God! Adoration is primarily an act of faith – the act of faith as such. God is not just some possible or impossible hypothesis concerning the origin of all things He is present. And if he is present, then I bow down before him.
Then my intellect and will and heart open up towards him and from him. In the risen Christ, the incarnate God is present, who suffered for us because he loves us. We enter this certainty of God’s tangible love for us with love in our own hearts. This is adoration, and this then determines my life. Only thus can I celebrate the Eucharist correctly and receive the body of the Lord rightly.

Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2011 --- Benedict XVI

No, Jesus did not said:Matthew 26:27 Then he took a cup, [The Passover cups never had blood in them, always just wine} and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [The disciples would immediately understand relating to the Passover Seder of drinking the wine as a memorial USING WINE NOT THE BLOOD OF THE SACRIFICE, for in the Seder the wine is specifically spoken of as symbol of the blood of the sacrifice for their deliverance from the death Angel] 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine [RIGHT there Jesus tells you that what is in the cup is wine!] from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” There is a huge difference that we must comprehend if we are to stop this faux Eucharist and do as Christ Instructed, do this bread and wine as a Remembrance of His death, as Paul explained so succinctly.

The Remembrance Jesus instituted is a part of the Passover Seder no longer prefigured with the Passover, but actualized in the death upon the cross.

I did as you asked. I read all your posts in this thread. I saw nothing there that constituted a rigorous refutation of the idea that "physical" is important to understanding transubstantiation. And if I have misstated your point, be assured it is not intentional. My belief is that you have a vested interest in distancing Aquinan metaphysics from modern notions of physicality, and there is some technical justification for that, as words are slippery things, and over time pick up and lose bits of meaning, and so clarifications are often quite helpful.

But when virtually everybody in the room is bumbling about with the supposedly wrong idea about something, perhaps the fault is in an idea that is impossible to properly conceive, or possibly many of them are just guilty of noticing the emperor's lack of attire.

For just one example (there are others), the folks at the Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, you would think, would have this right. But:

It was Pope Paul VI who declared Mary the Mother of the Church at the close of the Second Vatican Council, who visited her shrine at Fatima in 1967 and continuously exhorted Catholics to pray her Rosary. He also published the great Encyclical on the Holy Eucharist, "Mysterium Fidei". On the last page of that Encyclical he wrote this beautiful tribute to our Blessed Mother showing the unbroken link that has to exist between her and Christ who is physically present in the Eucharist: He wrote: "May the Most Blessed Virgin Mary from whom Christ Our Lord took the flesh which under the species of bread and wine 'in contained, offered and consumed,' may all the saints of God, especially those who burned with a more ardent devotion to the Divine Eucharist, intercede before the Father of mercies so that from this same faith in and devotion toward the Eucharist may result and flourish a perfect unity of communion among all Christians."

Available at: http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/ladyeuch.htm

BTW, please do not think I am confused that this is an authoritative representation of Roman doctrine. In some sense I feel I have completely lost track of what constitutes authoritative Roman teaching, as there are so many qualifiers to keep track of and such diversity of opinion on the matter, and so I am quite sympathetic to the multitudes of the rank and file Catholics, some of whom are family to me, who do not get the fine points of transubstantive ontology, and so persist in such unsophisticated descriptions.

Nevertheless, I believe even the sophisticates are in trouble on this. For example, not even Aquinas could avoid linking both matter and form to substance:

We likewise find an order of goodness among the parts of a substance composed of matter and form. For since matter, considered in itself, is potential being,542 while form is the actualisation of that being, and the substance composed of the two is actually existent through the form, the form will be good in itself; the composed substance will be good as it actually has the form; and the matter will be good inasmuch as it is in potentiality to the form.

Available here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.vi.xvii.html

In Aristotle, such a composite necessarily entails materiality. In what sense then is "physicality" distinct from this concept of material, of matter, that joins with form to give substance? While there may be distinctions for us moderns resulting from the current dominance of a general materialism, the two sets overlap significantly, and it cannot be said that there is no or even just a merely insignificant role for materiality in the scholastic concept of substance.

Again, I have seen nothing so far, whether in your posts or anywhere else, that protects the alleged sacramental presence of Christ from being properly seen, under the Aristotelian-Aqinan formulation, as the physical presence of Christ.

One more point. OK two more points. First, I agree that the brevity of both our comments defeats a full exploration of the subject. Full books do not even cover all the bases. So at best we are exchanging brief sketches, not full portraits of the topic. My apologies in advance for any important details overlooked. I'm sure there are such.

Second, with respect to the body of Christ being a spiritual body as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians, I think it is clear on a number of grounds that he is not being dismissive of ordinary physicality of such bodies. We know Christ in His resurrection body did interact with ordinary physical objects, food, people touching Him, etc. I do not think that is a ticket out of the problem of Aquinan substance implying the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Furthermore, it is possible to understand that distinction in a manner you hinted at, that the resurrected body is animated by a spiritual principle that is different in kind from the fleshly principle that animates our present physical being. This could well be what Paul meant, but if so, it does nothing to discredit that Jesus' body was (and still is) physical in some reasonable sense and therefore still subject to the proper limitations in time and space of a physical body, as well as the law concerning cannibalism.

But on the sharp edge of Ockham's we still find the most elegant solution is to look at what Jesus said in the most ordinary light, that these teachings were wonderful metaphors of the believer's total dependence on and faith in Him as Messiah, as Peter vividly demonstrates at the end of John 6. No extraordinary journey into medieval alchemy is necessary. Christ is real, and He is present with us when we gather in His name, and even when we commune with Him alone during the dark night of the soul. That presence is no less real than His walk with the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Peace,

SR

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.