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.

But PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, believe me: transubstantiation is NOT about a PHYSICAL change.

Look, Catholics tell us continually that we have to eat the LITERAL body and blood of Christ and that is what He meant when the crowds left Him because they thought LITERAL flesh and blood.

Some Catholics tell us that the actual, true, real change happens after we swallow it so nobody can deny or disprove their claim that it's the LITERAL actual, real flesh and blood.

You just have to take it by faith that the change happened because it's where nobody can see.

How convenient.

And now y'all tell us that it's not LITERAL literal, but figurative literal, or something.

That we're not really eating the LITERAL flesh and blood, but something that changes into it, or something like that.

Y'all want to get on the same page?

The simplest, easiest explanation is that it's real, literal, actual bread and wine that represents a spiritual reality. It's a picture in the physical that we humans need to understand the spiritual truth that Jesus was teaching. And it is NOT that Jesus is teaching us to violate the perpetual ordinance given before the Law, reiterated in the Law and again reiterated under the New Covenant, that the eating of blood is expressly forbidden by God.

The interpretation of the bread and wine being nothing more than symbolic representation of spiritual truths fits the best with overall interpretation of Scripture and does not contradict the weigh of teaching throughout Scripture to NEVER eat the blood.

Jesus does not inhabit a wheat wafer, a host, or anything other than the believer, who is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christ in me, the Hope of glory.

I don't need to eat Him to have Him living in me. He's in there 24/7. If He's already there, I don't have to do anything to put Him there where He already is.

Yes, dartuser has hit another homerun!

The disciples who believed Jesus and were 'down for the whole mission' spoke of the Words of Eternal Life, not bread or manna or blood drinking. Those who walked away were focused upon the flesh and the blood and they were so focused on what they could do to be worthy that the violation of the laws of Moses eliminated Jesus as anything they would follow.

I mean, look at what they asked Jesus: 'what works must we do?'! It's the age old barrier that secret pride in self erects, looking for how to do it for God or how to do it to be worthy of Grace, as if what they can do is going to get accounted for them in some weighing exercise, or their good livin' will outweigh the bad livin'.

The ones who walked away had asked 'what must we do to earn this bread, this forever food from God?' Jesus's answer didn't suit their self pride, so they settled upon the law as their shield from seeing the Truth of what Jesus was telling them, that just believing is what God requires. When that didn't suit them, Jesus used sarcasm to drive them out all together.

The Jews had reached the point that even their Passover meals were not spiritual but exercises in Pride at being the chosen people. What Jesus came to do was fufill the alw the Jews beleievd would weigh them worthy of eternal life. It cannot, as Paul explained over and over.

dartuser: The events in John 6 are several years before that.

Campion: No, it was exactly one year before that. At the Passover, see Jn 6:4.

Yes, actually on Nisan 3, one year and ten days before the evening of the last supper. But this does not negate the point that dartuser is making, which is really found in verse 35:

"Then Jesus said to them, 'I Am myself continuously being The Bread of The Absolute Life. The one coming to me positively shall not become hungry. And the one continually committing trust unto me poaitively shall not ever thirst.'" (John 6:35 A Precise Translation)

The context of this is as follows:

(1) "Them" in verse 35is the huge crowd of people that was following him as pseudo-disciples, merely for the sake of the bread (and fishes) that he had supplied them, amounting about two hundred denarii worth.

(2) Among them and hearing Him were also His committed student group, who recorded this event.

(3) Quite apparently, the crowd had brought along their own liquid refreshments, wine and/or water, since they did not complain of thirst at the great feeding the day before or on this day.

(4) Note that Lake Genessaret was not very far away, as a generous source of water.

(5) Note also that the day before, this crowd had been processionally coming to Him to inquire of His teaching, His Words, and as they came He lifted up his eyes and gazed on them with rapt attention, probably causing His Own companions to observe and estimate the size of the crowd, and testing the disciples as to how to feed the crowd,

(6) Jesus' method was always teaching in parables, and He has already shown them how to understand the disciple-winning technique of sowing seed (Mt. 13:1-34. He also taught the parable of wells of living spiritual water (Jn. 4:6-14).

(7)Now, He's setting up another teaching demonstration to gauge His disciples' ability to interpret a parable. He's going to use the figurative-literal citation of equating literal bread with the Word of God as a metaphor (Mt. 4:4, Lk.4:4). First, He's going to show them that he has the unparallelled supernatural power to literally feed the crowd, and do it by capitalizing on the faith of a child who surrenders his lunch basket to the Rabbi.

(8) Then the next day, the crowd found him (as He with foreknowledge expected), and he got the crowd seated, and began to teach them again, with the parable of Himself being the Bread from Heaven, the Living Word of The God.

That is the context.

The meaning transmitted by the verse John 6:35 is:

(1) The action of responding to his invitation to come (approach intellectually) unto Him (re Mt. 11:28-29) and learn from Him is the figurative equivalent of being spiritually fed with the Bread of the Word of God, as the day before He had fed them with the literal bread for their physical hunger, and when one comes to Him and His Word, he/she no longer needs to be spiritually hungry.

(2) To continually commit unreserved trust in Him (and in His Word) is figuratively equivalent to never needing to have spiritual thirst for the Word of God, in like fashion as they had continually been close enough to a vast supply of physical water in the lake of Galilee for their physical thirst-quenching.needs.

That is why this whole drama is not about the literal Remembrance supper of the Lord (which is simply a taking of the tokens that remind us of His Passion), but is the invitation to become a committed follower of Him and His Word in company and companionship of other such disciples.

For us, this passage is a lesson in how to recognize and employ figurative language when it is to be distinguished from pedestrian simple literal expressions which by themselves have no spiritual value.

This passage does not lend any support to the doctrine of transubstantiation, dreamed up by the illiteral unimaginative natural mind (1 Cor. 2:14) for the illiterate participant, and its lack of literally changing the substance of the physical components dismisses the doctrine as having any relation to this passage.

There is another very very important and deep gem in dartuser's observation.

When the crowd demanded to know what they must do to do the work God requires they were echoing the demands made upon Moses that resulted in God sending Moses off of the Mountain with the laws of sin and death! The 'crowd' demanded to know what they could do to be righteous enough for eternal life.

The significance of this self-centered demand should not escape our attention because it is the same frame of reference hidden deep in the heart of asserting that someone, if diligent enough at the task, can be worthy of eternal life through the catholic mass regimen.

Jesus knew the hearts of those in the crowd pressing for the requirements to obtain eternal life. Jesus knew they were asking from the human nature side, of pride in self. The Truth of that is right there illustrated in the verses. They want the man who is doing miracles, that just must be result of God with the man, to tell them what they must do so they can be doing what God requires to earn eternal life (remember the words of Nicodemus, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." John 3:2).

When Nicodemus came asking how to be pleasing to God, to have eternal life, Nic was seeking 'what must I do to earn or be worthy of eternal life.' Jesus answered that he must be born again, born from above. Still focused upon what a man can do to earn eternal life, Nic trapped himself by focusing on the birth process from a carnal perspective. Jesus quickly shifted his focus to the spiritual because He knew Nicodemus was sincerely seeking to know what God wanted from him to have eternal life. Jesus could also know Nic's heart, and perhaps heavy on Nic's heart was the spiritual needs of His people, though he still tried to reduce the risks of being rejected by the Sanhedrin for seeking advice from Jesus.

At that stage Jesus rewarded sincerity with an insight not even found in the scriptures Nicodemus had studied all his adult life, that as the serpent was raised up in the desert to heal venomous snake bites, so the Son of Man must be lifted up to heal the bite of sin, purge the satanic poison. In both cases Jesus is telling Nicodemus that it is faith which brings healing, not the actual object upon which we focus. The people gathering around Jesus, who were on the verge of seizing Him beside the lake, were not focused on faith. They were focused on their bellies (Jesus told them they sought Him not for wisdom or knowledge but because they had been filled with the food miracle John 6:26).

Jesus responds to what is in their pride perspective --they wanted to seize HIm and take HIm to be their conquering King. He tells them in 6;27 to work for the food that remains for eternal life. He is about to split the group into two factions: one faction is focused on their self worth, their self empowerment to earn that which Jesus knows cannot be earned and must be given by The Grace of God responding to faith, responding with belief in Who God has sent for their salvation. He knows up front that one group will continue to focus upon the carnal and seek a means to work their way to worthiness. They had an agenda, to get the conquering King out in front and cast off Roman rule. He also knows there is a small cadre of those who already have learned to focus upon the spiritual in what Jesus says, for His are the Words of Eternal Life.

Jesus does just what He said He had come to do: Matthew 10:34-36 ... He had not come to bring Peace, and the one group, the much larger group, had every intention of forcing Him to bring Peace by this miraculous power He demonstrated with the five loaves and two fishes. The larger crowd could not get enough of this spectacular stuff! They demanded more, perhaps believing they could catch Him up in the power rush! Of course that is satanic in origins. Satan wanted to out the Messiah on satan's terms, not God's timing.

When Jesus answered their demand to know what God requires 'they do' to be worthy of God's rewards, Jesus tells them the same thing He told Nicodemus, He just phrased it a little differently. He told them to focus faith upon the one God has sent for their healing of the sin disease.

This of course did not fit with the intentions they had when pursuing Him to the other side of the lake! They wanted to carry Him off to be their King. Did the demand for a king that resulted in Saul not remain in their minds as a lesson to not demand their own choices? Apparently the human pride thing is too powerful for 'God's chosen people' to get around in order to see the Truth. With some, a large sum, they demand to know what work they can do to earn / be worthy of what God gives freely in response to faithing in Whom He has sent and has told us repeatedly cannot be earned; it is a Gift of God.

So, how does Jesus rid His entourage of these works based followers? With divine sarcasm! The irony is that the catholic faith system is made up of the very same error which Jesus purged from His followers!

The faithful following of the sacramental trail, with essential hallmarks like taking Mass as often as possible and penance (talk about earning something!), and fidelity to Mary, and repetitions of memorized phrases, etc. All that is working to be worthy. Jesus gave the ironic solution by sarcastically pointing to 'okay, you want to earn this Gift, violate the Laws of Moses by eating my flesh and drinking my blood. You think you can earn eternal life, violate the laws of Moses and eat my flesh and drink my blood to get God's Life in you.' Jesus used the spear of irony to strike at the heart of their works based trust.

But Jesus didn't leave the other of the groups without understanding. He told them that taking in the flesh profits not at all, that eating His flesh and drinking His literal blood has no spiritual value. And we know that small group got the sarcasm because Peter says, 'Lord, you have the Words of Eternal Life.' Peter didn't say 'you have the flesh we need to eat or the blood we need to drink'. Peter was learning that the things Jesus emphasized ALWAYS were aimed at spiritual Truths.

So, what was one of the most important lessons in John 6? You cannot earn eternal life. It must come by faith, for only God has the righteousness necessary to inhabit His eternity with Him.

Catholicism is a works based religion, in many ways similar to Mormonism in that a specified system of religious duty is the means to 'obtain' eternal life.

And with that, I will guarantee there are catholic minds who have had the decency to read all the way through to here and yet will have burble up in their minds 'Jesus said, "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you." These are they whom Jesus used divine sarcasm on to send them out of the mission He was following. 'For it is by faith you are saved, not of works lest any man or woman boast.'

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.