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]

We may surmise that catholic apologists are not interested in Truth from the Bible i9f it is not specifically approved by their Magicsteeringthem. Truth found in the Bible is not truth until their Magicsteeringthem declares it such. One of theirf ollowers has said that to be catholic is to be preferred to being born from above in an immediate act by God. Rather, we presume, such an one would rather strive/work their way to worthiness. Such is the wide road going through the broad gate.

[verga]

That, sir, is quite obvious, you would rather be catholic than see what The Bible clearly says to you.

That is an ironic comment. 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. τὸ πνεῦμά (to pneuma) translates to "The Spirit." on the other hand ἡ σὰρξ (he sarx) Translates to "the flesh."

If we go to John 6:55 Jesus still speaking says σάρξ μου (sarx mou) My flesh or more literally "the flesh of me".

So please explain how the definite article "he" (the) transmogrifies into "mou" my.

Non-Catholics are substituting words that are not there instead of seeing the words that are there for all to see.

[MHGinTN]

You forget perhaps that Catholicism teaches one can lose this catholic approved holy spirit and be in need therefore of the priestly function to re-up this catholic holy spirit. Magic Thinking comes in lots of flavors. It tastes good to the tongue, but it is poison nevertheless. How many catholic rites and sacraments do you suppose those who received the Holy Spirit of GOD on the day of Pentecost and in the House of Cornelius went through to be born from above? Do you dare to imagine that some of them lost this GOD Spirit Life after GOD put it in them? ... Perhaps the catholic god can be so easily thwarted, but the BIBLE is very clear that no man, not even the man into whom GOD puts His Life can wriggle out of God’s two hands.

[cuban leaf]

The whole chapter follows in the same vein, and quite firmly.

---

Yes, it does. It’s why I say the two are very similar on the surface. What I’m talking about is the message of the whole new testament as well as how the OT looks forward to it.

[cuban leaf]

Yes, the OT was very personal to a few characters.

[avenir]

Do you agree that their “ordained priesthood” is an invention? Not to mention their supposed powers to change something into something else? I don’t find that ANYWHERE in Scripture. Can you find it in there?

[MHGinTN]

With the catholic Magic Thinking, who knows what wonders the Magicsteeringthem can come up with? I mean, they have fabricated an entire adorati over the Mother of Jesus without one single Bible passage to support any of it!

[Mad Dawg]

I have all I can do addressing false representations of Catholic Eucharistic theology. The other false representations will have to wait for another thread and another time.

[MHGinTN]

Maybe you can get The Mother of God to help you. She is so essential to the High Priestly work of Jesus the Christ, according to the catholic Magicsteeringthem.

[Mad Dawg]

I think when our betters start with the disparaging and mocking misspellings and bringing up a barrage of other issues we can just let the hope of reason and courtesy go.

[MHGinTN]

Hard to let go something you had no grasp on.

[Mad Dawg]

It is interesting the the Chalcedonian Definition, which features in the original post, mentions the term theotokos favorably.

[MHGinTN]

Have nice day

[Mad Dawg]

Is there something you are trying to say to or about me?

[verga]

So this is what you do when your case is disproven?

[MHGinTN]

You Have Nice Day too

[verga]

Didn’t the RM speak to you up thread about posting with out translations?

[Religion Moderator]

Provide a translation for the foreign text.

Religion Forum guidelines are clear on that.

[MHGinTN]

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.”