Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation
Reclaiming the Mind Credo House ^ | March 8, 2013 | C Michael Patton

Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by 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.

 


TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian
KEYWORDS: eschatology; rememerance; scripture; truth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-598 next last
To: CynicalBear
There is physical and there is spiritual. There is nothing else.

There is Catholic, protestant, Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, and agnostic, there is nothing else.

281 posted on 07/12/2015 9:42:11 AM PDT by verga (I might as well be playng chess with pigeons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

I expected only crickets. That mumbo jumbo magic incantation stuff can’t stand up to God’s word.


282 posted on 07/12/2015 9:43:21 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler
>>Perhaps, a RC, Presby, Unitarian Mormon truck stop preachin’ agnostic zen sufi, one? Thank you.<<

Simply God's word from scripture doesn't suffice for you?

283 posted on 07/12/2015 9:45:53 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; metmom

You sure don’t use much scripture do you?


284 posted on 07/12/2015 9:49:12 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Before the Diabetes I would have an occasional Scotch, now I limit myself to a sip of the Precious Blood at Mass every weekend.

I will bring what ever you like though, I keep plenty on hand for my friends that do partake.

285 posted on 07/12/2015 9:50:26 AM PDT by verga (I might as well be playng chess with pigeons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: verga

I will pray that he continues to ignore your “ministering” and stays true to his faith.


It is his LACK of faith that is why the ministering was required.

But it is unlikely we will ever see them again. His wife died and he has always been a bit bitter regarding my wife because she honored her first husband’s wishes and scattered his ashes in a place in the cascade mountains that was to remain secret. Her former father-in-law has never really forgiven her for not revealing the place.


286 posted on 07/12/2015 9:57:32 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: verga
>>There is Catholic, protestant, Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, and agnostic, there is nothing else.<<

Of course there is. There is the born again believer who is part of the body of Christ, the ekklesia, those called out who are children of the most high God.

287 posted on 07/12/2015 9:58:11 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Of course there is. There is the born again believer who is part of the body of Christ, the ekklesia, those called out who are children of the most high God.

Amen, brother.

288 posted on 07/12/2015 10:06:19 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Just tell your father in law to sit down with a priest and girt that question answered.


289 posted on 07/12/2015 10:07:23 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: verga

“I will pray that he continues to ignore your “ministering” and stays true to his faith.”

He HAS stayed true, thus being deprived of the confidence he should have all due to the finished work of Christ. Doubt and fear haunt when we think salvation depends on us.


290 posted on 07/12/2015 10:15:22 AM PDT by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: verga

I am not too thrilled with type 2 myself. What a king size hassle.


291 posted on 07/12/2015 10:15:24 AM PDT by Mark17 (Thy goodness faileth never. Good shepherd may I sing thy praise, within thy house forever. Amen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Just tell your father in law to sit down with a priest and girt that question answered.


That was the problem. He already had.


292 posted on 07/12/2015 10:19:48 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Just tell your father in law to sit down with a priest and girt that question answered.


That was the problem. He already had.

Problem is that my wife and I strongly believe in the power of YOPIOS, and she was mainly trying to get him to read the word himself, but he thinks he’s too stupid to understand it. It’s what he’s been taught for all of his 85+ years in the church.

It’s very sad.


293 posted on 07/12/2015 10:21:10 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Not when discussing something else, no.

Would I want an automobile mechanic to look to Scripture for the procedure to replace a head gasket? Do I want a math professor to teach only the math found in Scripture? 2

294 posted on 07/12/2015 10:44:35 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
>>Would I want an automobile mechanic to look to Scripture for the procedure to replace a head gasket?<<

This is a religion thread not a mechanics thread.

>>Do I want a math professor to teach only the math found in Scripture?<<

It isn't a math thread either.

The discussion was the fable of "transubstantiation". Do you consider that mechanics or math?

295 posted on 07/12/2015 10:47:40 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: verga; cuban leaf

There is no essential exclusionary difference from the gift of faith in Christ’s unfailing love and all-sufficient merit, on the one hand, and sound ecclesiology on the other.

I hope the “ministering” is “pro-Love” without being “anti-Church.”


296 posted on 07/12/2015 10:49:20 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Do you know wht an analogy is?


297 posted on 07/12/2015 10:51:12 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; verga; RnMomof7; DuncanWaring; rjsimmon

RN, what do you think of the OP? You posted it. Why?

I did it, and you, the courtesy of reading it carefully and responding seriously. I spent the most of my few words in that response addressing his argument from the Chalcedonian Definition.

I don’t know what it is we are doing here.


298 posted on 07/12/2015 11:00:24 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
>>Do you know wht an analogy is?<<

"transubstantiation" can't be defended with scripture so you resort to human reasoning? Doesn't wash.

299 posted on 07/12/2015 11:20:08 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
>>and responding seriously.<<

Sounded mostly like nether world speak to me. Or maybe pagan mysticism.

300 posted on 07/12/2015 11:22:21 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 581-598 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson