Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Reclaiming the Mind Credo House ^ | March 8, 2013 | C Michael Patton

[RnMomof7]

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:

1. It takes Christ too literally

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?

2. It does not take Christ literally enough

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.

3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)

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?

4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist

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.)

5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon

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.

 

[MHGinTN]

Mary, they were at Passover. The 'bread' was unleavened, because that is the bread used for the Passover Seder. He said the unleavened bread was His body sacrificed for them. If He had offered His actual body, in any form, to them to eat that night before His new covenant, He would have violated the very Laws against cannibalism He came to fulfill.

The disciples knew He was using the unleavened bread of Passover to show His death as the actual death prefigured in the Passover. The Passover lamb was slain, the blood was poured out upon the earth and a small portion was spread on the doorposts and lintel as a sign for the death Angel to pass over that home. The Levitical law was not violated by drinking some of the blood. That's Paganism.

Then inside the Home the sacrificed lamb was eaten, all of it, leaving nothing except what would be burned up to finish it. Had Jesus been offering His real flesh (which He had taught them but apparently not you was going to profit nothing in eating it) then He would have been fully consumed or burnt up in closing the Passover meal.

But Jesus had not yet been slain the night of the Passover Seder, so He would not have offered eating of the passover actual lamb slain from the foundation of the world because He was not yet slain. So what do you think He meant by 'this bread is my body to be sacrificed for you'? ... He and the disciples left the Passover meal and went to the Mt. He was not burnt up as the Passover actual sacrifice was commanded to be dealt with if there was any leftovers.

[maryz]

Still not answering the question, unless you mean that somehow the bread qua bread was going to be offered up for them.

[maryz]

“. . . and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

[MHGinTN]

Mary, was the unleavened bread nailed to the cross? Did Nicodemus pay lots of money to treat the remains of unleavened bread? Mary, Jesus was using the whole scene of Passover to teach His disciples and you that ‘He is the Passover lamb TO BE SLAIN’. The entire symbolic Passover emal was the substance of what Jesus using as His tool to open the eyes of the disciples as to why He was going tot he Cross the next day. And ya know what, Peter still didn’t get it! Yes, the same Peter ctholicism claims to position as their first pope, even with Jesus suing the entire Passover meal to teach them the essence of the new covenant, Peter was still hung up on the dying part. At least he was stuck on the death and sacrifice part, not the simple unleavened bread.

[maryz]

Mary, was the unleavened bread nailed to the cross?

Exactly! So why did Christ say of the bread "This is My Body." So why or how is the bread like His Body?

[imardmd1]

Because that’s all these threads really are ... just an anti-Catholic game.

No, these threads are not an anti-Catholic game. They are discussions based on clear teaching of incontrovertible Biblical truths. If your belief structure bounces off it, that's your problem.

[MHGinTN]

Mary, He gave that Flesh on the Cross, not in the Passover Remembrance the night before. When Paul instructed the Corinthians that the bread and wine are remembrance of HID DEATH, Paul agve you the necessary point to attach your faith to, that the remembrance shows the death of Christ until He returns for His Church, His Bride.

Now, take your eyes off of the bread for a moment and focus upon the way God's Life gets in the believer. Is it by eating Jesus in any form, or is it solely the power of God's Holy Spirit, as illustrated for you on the day of Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius? Focus upon that and let God's spirit whisper the answer to you. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so shall the son of man be lifted up that all who look upon Him shall have eternal Life ... not, all that eat his real substantially present body, blood, soul and DIVINITY shall get god-life into them via gastronic function.

[maryz]

So why did He say it? Or am I over my limit for asking a question and not getting an answer? Is it 3 times and then you conclude the answer is “No answer”?

[MHGinTN]

Mary, no matter how many times you demand it, I am not going to give you the catholic answer because it is heretical. I'm an old man. Your soul is so precious to God that He took flesh and dwelt among us, then offered up HIS FLESH on the Cross not the catholic altar, His body and HIS BLOOD, perfect, untainted blood, as the poured out payment for the atonement.

IF you ever study the why for the pouring out of the blood rather than ingesting it, you will be gob smacked at the arrogance of assuming a catholic priest can offer you the blood to drink or in a wafer. You can refuse to awaken to Truth, but it is not wise.

Jesus would not violate IN ANY WAY the laws He came to fulfill, one of which is found in Leviticus 3:17. His Flesh He offered up upon the cross for you and for me. His blood was poured out upon the ground at the foot of the cross fulfilling something begun in the time of Abel, son of Adam. His blood was also sprinkled on the Mercy above the laws of sin and death.

The Mercy Seat was right over the books of the laws in the ark below the Mercy Seat. When God looks (we are being figurative) down at the laws to weigh you against His righteousness, He sees the perfect righteous blood of Jesus and not past that perfection. He does not see the laws of sin and death because The Blood of Jesus Christ covers those laws for you.

[dartuser]

Another point that I have been thinking about lately concerning John 6.

RCs tell us that we are to understand the eating the flesh and drinking the blood literally. Think about the position the RCs here are arguing. The unbelievers who left Jesus ... they were the ones who took the sayings of Jesus literally. The ones who responded "How can this man give us his flesh to eat ... " ... are the ones who walked away.

So the RCs here are in the embarrassing position of supporting the view of the unbelieving masses (no pun intended) who left.

[maryz]

So how does “This My Body” function as a metaphor? What does the “My Body” illuminate about the bread? Because the sentence is about the bread.

[maryz]

I’m asking you for a purely literary answer.

[MHGinTN]

Using catholic Magic Thinking, they will shift the scene on you, trying to take you away from what is an embarrassment to their heresy, over tot he legitimate scene the night before He went tot he Cross. But if you press the point of the Passover, they will immediately shift back to the specious reference from the year before. You can tell them that Jesus was using sarcasm to winnow the weak ones who would not be ‘down for the struggle’, but that only shifts their magic thinking to ‘do whatever he says, just do it.’ It is a lesson in what I’ve dubbed selective literalism. It is like jello and nails and walls, but only the Holy Spirit can break through the darkness with a flicker of Truth’s Light. And lest we forget, that is exactly why He command us to be about the family business, proclaiming the Gospel of His Grace offered to us in Jesus Christ.

[Springfield Reformer]

Gestural metaphors just work that way. If you know what I mean when I show you my daughter’s picture, and say “This is my little angel,” then you should be easily able to solve what Jesus is saying. The bread is the metaphor, and His body is the topic, the thing the bread is teaching about. As the bread is broken, so His body will be, for us. As the wine is poured out, so His blood will be, for us. These are remembrances of His death on our behalf. This is the Gospel in a picture. The meaning could not be more clear.

Peace,

SR

[MHGinTN]

To what question? You see, you want a literary answer, which brings us to metaphor and simile and idiom. I’m an old writer. Those are my stock and trade in fiction. But Jesus used these to convey spiritual Truths. He spoke in parables to the masses. He used sarcasm to winnow out those who were just ‘thrill seekers’ looking for spectacular miracles like the manna which came every night for FORTY YEARS. He made comparisons and stuck absolutely to the real Laws of Moses, the Ten Commandments which define the Character of God. The only Man who ever lived to the perfect level of God’s Character in keeping the Ten Commandments was Jesus. He never sinned because His seed remained within Him. God’s Life remained in Jesus throughout His life on this 4D spacetime level. Then, He offered up His fleshly body and the life in His human blood to fulfill the required keeping of the commandments for you and for me.

[maryz]

But broken is just what His Body wasn’t — “not a bone of him shall be broken.”

[Springfield Reformer]

Dead is broken, bones notwithstanding. You know what happens internally during a crucifixion? Not to mention the spear penetrating to the pericardium. Play with that definition if you like, but beaten to a bleeding pulp and crucified and killed is as broken as it gets.

Peace,

SR

[DuncanWaring]

If that were actually true, there wouldn’t be the “In before...” and the counting-coup and the celebratory dancing.

[CynicalBear]

>>how is the bread like His Body?<<

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jeremiah 15:16 Your words were found and I ate them, And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O LORD God of hosts.

Jesus is the embodiment of God's word. When He told us to eat His flesh He was talking about eating the word of God just as Jeremiah did. Only the carnally minded focus on the natural/physical flesh.

[metmom]

Christs is NOT a victim and never has been.

He offered Himself. Nobody took His life from Him. He gave it.