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 silly me.

Here I thought, all along, that being sure of what God told me was called *faith*.

I guess *faith* for some is not being sure that God means what He says and we can’t count on it, that it means doubting what He told us in Scripture.

You know, black is white and all that.

I couldn't think of anything more embarrassing than that 😇
Why?

They just get a big vat of water, set in on the stove, and then boil the HELL out of it!

LOL, well since we are talking about metaphors, you know, like the wafer, perhaps you could say, that later in life, I got the hell boiled out of me, without someone thinking that I was physically boiled. 😂😇😎

Why would I in any number of words?

I have not yet argued (in this thread at least) for the truth of transubstantiation. I have only argued against misinterpretations of the dogma.

Your passage is from some guy -- about whom I could find nothing -- talking about bringing Christ down and placing him on the altar.

Sed contra:The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place. [emphasis added.]
-- St III Q.76, A.5

So, since Aquinas is the foremost expositor of the dogma and since, further, in 1879 Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris singled out Aquinas particularly and Scholasticism generally for special honor as a "Doctor of the Church," therefor when someone writes as did the writer of your passage the kindest thing we can do is take it as some exuberantly (and misguided) figure of speech.

I think if you can prove the realm you describe using Scripture you should write it up and make it a thread. I would be interested.

But it still wouldn't pertain to "substance" as the term is used in Aquinas or in the dogma.

“Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us.”

I’ve often thought about this, that when the Word was made flesh, it was the Spirit that gave life to the flesh. In the same way, when Jesus was raised from the dead, it was again the Spirit that gave his flesh life.

Jesus says in John 6:63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Just before He said this, He spoke about His flesh giving life. He said:

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

and

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

The flesh by itself does indeed profiteth nothing. But through the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh gives life to the world. These are the words from Jesus of spirit and life.

When someone insists that Jesus was being literal with the eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as in the cannibalism thingy, because it violates the Levitical laws which Jesus came to fulfill not violate, it is up to the one insisting these are literal flesh and blood eating to show how the Bible, God's Word allows such a violation?

Also, that Jesus spoke the clarification to the ones who He knew were steadfastly with Him should tells us what we need to identify the Truths. Jesus said eating His flesh profits nothing ... he as much as said, ‘the flesh eating and blood drinking thing is not the means to get God's Life in you. It is the Spirit that puts God's Life in you.

You guys keep insisting that we take Him at His words but then you want to twist those clear teachings to the ones who remained loyal so that they fit the specious meaning which caused the ones to walk no longer with Him!

In the same chapter, Jesus had already given a similar explanation of how to work the works God requires as what He had explained to Nicodemus. Is it that being catholic you must reject the Truth that it is by faith we are saved, not of works lest any man boast? Are you, as the Jews pushing Him that day, so focused on what you can do to eventually obtain eternal life that you will reject the clear Teaching of Jesus in order to hold fast to the pride of self striving to obtain?

The Promise of God to Give Eternal Life right then, not after some striving trail of sacraments and Masses and Penance and purgatory, was illustrated at Pentecost with the Holy Spirit coming into believers who were of a broken and contrite spirit. In the house of Cornelius the Holy Spirit came into the listeners even before Peter 'gave an invitation' or required of them a 'sinner's prayer'. God put His Eternal Life in the believers immediately. That wasn't a special case not to be repeated ever again without RCC priesthood. It was the essence of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, and the born from above didn't have any to drink to get that life in them!

Summa Theologiae, Part III, Q. 73, Art. 3

Article 3. Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
Sed contra: Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): "Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ."

I have already shown where cannibalism is expressly denied as an appropriate understanding of what we teach.

Here in the "Sed Contra" (the quick answer before the more detailed argument is set out) Aquinas cites a letter Augustine, one of the foremost proponents of Salvation by Grace through Faith, wrote against Pelagius, perhaps history's foremost advocate of salvation by works. I don't think you're likely to find Pelagianism in Aquinas. And I don't see how the dogma of transubstantiation impinges on the teaching of Paul.

You insisted, “I have already shown where cannibalism is expressly denied as an appropriate understanding of what we teach.” Sorry, just saying it in denial of the blasphemous doesn’t make it so. The father of lies is not going to say Truth. He will always defined his lies. This imagined explanation is mumbo jumbo. ANY real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity claim to be in any way in the catholic wafer on the catholic altar is magic thinking. Do deny what your ‘other religion’ teaches of the Mass is to employ magic thinking to swallow the koolaid. Deny in any way you wish, expoundng the lengthy passages from Aquinas or Mad Dawg, the truth is you are teaching people that must eat the god of Catholicism to get the life of the god of Catholicism into them. That is teaching ‘another gospel.’ Denial does not change the reality that you are teaching something contrary to what Jesus taught and God illustrated with Holy Spirit presence at Pentecost and int he house of Cornelius.

I am saying that the plain meaning of catechism words reveals Catholicism teaches that The REAL substantial body, blood, soul AND DIVINITY in magically ‘transubstantiated’ into the wafer on the catholic altar. I am saying that the plain words of catholic dogma insist that the catholic priest has the POWER to bring The Christ from His Throne down to be continually sacrificed by the catholic priest on the catholic altar. Now catholics may parse that in clintonesque style to mean anything, but the clear meaning of the wording is blasphemous. I am saying, to but it quite bluntly, that catholicism is a demonic twist of what once was the means to bring people to salvation. Dragging poor Thomas Aquinas into these pleadings does nothing to change the blasphemies of catholic assertions.

You guys keep insisting that we take Him at His words

Just as you guys keep insisting that we not take Him at His words. Personally, I’d rather take Him at His words. He didn’t say He was joking, or speaking sarcastically, or speaking metaphorically. He said: “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” And Jesus never said “eating His flesh profits nothing.” He said the exact opposite.

If you don’t want to take Him at his words, fine. Don’t. Just keep repeating the mantra “REMEMBRANCE” so you can keep denying the words that Jesus spoke; His words of truth and life.

But if you don’t want us to insist that you reject your belief, please stop insisting that we reject our beliefs.

Deny in any way you wish, expoundng the lengthy passages from Aquinas or Mad Dawg, the truth is you are teaching people that must eat the god of Catholicism to get the life of the god of Catholicism into them.

In a lengthy passage of fewer than 40 words, Aquinas quotes Augustine to say the exact opposite of what you say. Receiving the Sacramental body and blood are not necessary to get the Life. He argues against the idea that the Sacrament is necessary to Salvation.

This makes some things clearer. No wonder there was so little response to my answer to the original post. That post LOOKED like an argument, but it was really not one. It was more like a politician's speech. It's not meant to be looked at carefully, it's just a kind of extended cheering or pep-rally. So the truth of any particular statement doesn't matter as long as the argument is anti-Catholic.

Anti-Catholicism is so fundamentally and, as it were, superabundantly true that it really doesn't matter what anybody says. If an article says things that aren't true, the truth of its being anti-Catholic washes away the other, lesser falsehoods.

Similarly, the greatest single authority on Catholic teaching about the Eucharist can write that the Sacrament is not necessary to salvation, but, He's Catholic, so he didn't mean it, but in fact meant the opposite.

AlllRIGHTY then.

NO. These are the words John wrote:

John 6: 61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 Then what if you would see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

The word 'profits' is conveying an active sense. The Greek word is ὠφελέω which is preceded by a negation, meaning the positive meaning of ópheleó , to help, to benefit is negated. The CLEAR meaning of the sentence is Jesus telling them what you think hleps, benefits does not help or benefit ... BECAUSE IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT GIVES LIFE, not the eating of flesh.

The catechism as written for catholics today instruct that it is essential. You can dance around the issues all night and still have not addressed the blasphemous claim that the priest of the RCC brings Christ down tot he catholic altar to sacrifice him in BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY continuously. That is blasphemy and to pretend that is not the issue is, well, diversion. I don’t dance with Augustine, Aquinas, or Luther. You haven’t impressed me with the crafty dodges of the essential issues, though I am sure there are catholic minds so enamoured by your obfuscations that they are saying prayers of thanksgiving for your work here. /sarcasm

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.