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.

Upon review, I find that this list overlooks one very clear Biblical command critical to every Christian, Constitutional American, and FReeper, especially in our day of increasing lawlessness:

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36 AV).

That's Jesus' command, and should not have been omitted from your list; all the major commentators say so. It is worthwhile to examine the context and study this situation out.

If the South Carolina church members had been obeying this command, their meeting would not have been a gun-free zone and doubtless the shooter would not have gotten his way with them. Peter and another, even at the Last Supper/First Communion had their sidearms with them, and Jesus told them all to get one.

Today that would be equivalent to being armed with a personal weapon, even in church, not excluding even in the communion service.

The deadly effect, as I see it, of turfiness, is that it makes it too easy for people to coast and "murmur," rather than take an active part. Ruling cliques and sullen majorities result.

That's what I'm saying. This type of church eventually fails for lack of disciplers nurturing "the weak brother(s)" out of passivity into spiritual effectiveness, at least to the state of being young spiritual adults who have overcome the wicked ones, and are able to rule rheir own spirit, This should be the major goal for every member of the church.

The pastor cannot do it all, nor does Christ expect that he will. That's not the plan.

10-4.

Everything not God can go bad. And in the “orders” of the Catholic church what happens is periods of laxity finally ended in a reform which upsets a lot of people. Similarly with the lay adjuncts of orders.

When Dominic and Francis got going, even the orders most people think of as paradigmatically austere, were conspicuously wealthy. When Dominic went on a early mission he advised the hoity-toity clergy who wanted to accompany him to send their horses and their servants home. To their credit the bishops and abbots did so.

And in our 800 years, the lay Dominicans have often decayed into a sort of club. Though right now in Vietnam, there are 200k members of the Dominican laity and some of them have kicked up a respectable and effective fuss in the conflicts with the government.

I mention these lay groups, complete with their flaws and liabilities because, well, when the judges are unjust, we can pray that God will raise up some determined widows.

So, I “cope” by expanding my vision and reminding myself that God is at the helm. Maybe this parish or chapter will fade. This grass here may wither, those flowers fade, but the Word of Our God endures forever. And, if we take the evangelical command seriously, that's what matters.

This is funny. Outside of the celebration of Mug a Catholic Week, that is.

I guess I have to challenge you to souvlaki at 15 paces.

I think I asked you before, but please suggest a title of +Palamas. The next book on my list is Cassian, who was much loved of Dominic.

I think the holy man is mistaken about us. But, it's true, I could be the one who is mistaken.

It seems to me that every theology is, so to speak, a step down from the basic idea. So I always read the guys your writer disparages as not ultimate. Even Anselm, who makes it hard, is only one (or more) step below the real truth, which is apophatic — or very nearly.

For me where the rubber met the road was in the encounter with patients, especially children and their families, in the hospital. Certainly theology INFORMED my work with them. But not so that I could parse their sins or mete out graces with a teaspoon. It was more about committing my body and my mind, and of course my words and gestures, to be a vehicle and conduit of THE Love.

I am well aware that my Order produced Aquinas. And I do not apologize. He was very great.

I am also all too aware of the great number of Catholics who are all about the guilt and the penalties, who treat the whole thing as an accounting transaction or a trial. Maybe it's my naivete, but I do not think bthe writers your Reverend gentleman calls slanderers are to blame for those who think God is something one approaches as if one were baking a cake or solving a puzzle.

And, again, almost ALL Catholic theology is driven by an evangelical and apologetic mission. I guess I always think, when I'm teaching: Look, it's KIND of like this. But not really. What it's REALLY like, no words can say.

Last year I realized the difference between a good Catholic teacher and a GREAT Catholic teacher. The good one teaches the right answer. The GREAT one lights a fire for the Truth. I have seen both.

I wasn't very clear. For a change. Yeah. Right.

I was thinking of the orders as subject to the same waves of decadence and revival but also as a kind of cross-current. While other parishioners have the dynamic of the parish alone, we also have our sub-group and our sense of “vocation” and “charism” (which, in this case denotes a cluster of characteristics related to an order. For us: prayer, study, community, preaching, for example.)

So while the orders are subject to the same cycles, the rhythm may be different. So sometimes we vitalize a group, and sometimes the group vitalizes us.

That's a very interesting observation.

My Dad was a Methodist minister, and I have seen some of the inner works of the denomination. But I think in your terms one might consider their minister class as a distinct "order" separate from the common communicants, whom Methodists define as "the laity."

I'll have to consider this for a while, although this has no relationship to the polity of the kind of assembly in which I find fellowship. I left that approach almost as soon as I gained some Biblical discernment. But you can see what happens when women are considered for ordination. Eve's error continues.

More later, in another setting --

Souvlakia I know. Within a month, my crew and I will have cut up hundreds of pounds of lamb and pork to make hundreds of souvlas which the same crew will grill at our parish festival in early September, so beware, MD!

As for baklava, imardmd1, after 60+ years I can’t abide the stuff. Better to eat galaktobouriko or kataife or Greek halvah. To be fair, the Syrians/Lebanese and the Armenians both have wonderful forms of baklava, worthy of being a reward to the victor in a souvla duel...but not the Greek stuff!

Read The Triads and then we’ll discuss a duel!

A final note on Aristotle; some Greeks say that Christ’s Incarnation saved us Greeks from pagan Greek philosophy. Others say that the “sporoi tou Theou”, the seeds of God are found there.

I see your point, and I believe in it. However, let me suggest something here, and that is to ask yourself, "Why--when he had instructed all to obtain sidearms-- did Jesus say that two swords was enough?"

I think you can work that out, but for starters here's a thought:

=====

(1) I'd like to be able to say that I trust other humans 100%, but knowing Jeremiah 17:9, my trust in other humans is not 100%, ever--it is a calculated risk. And that means it is statistical in nature. (In God we trust, everybody else demonstrate some level of reliability.)
(2) So, in any assembly of other humans, we are all sitting ducks, a 'gun-free zone' for some deranged possessor of a firearm, if no one else is allowed to carry a sidearm.
(3) If, on the other hand, if carrying is allowed, and if even one in that assembly is likely to carry, the statistics of an attacker to commit mass murder goes way down.
(4) Yet if such an assembly has only one member carrying a deadly weapon, the possibility of him/her opening up with it irrationally, though minute, is not zero, for only God knows his/her heart, nor the judgment of that member in a very heated moment (remember Peter's lack of spiritual judgment on Olivet).
(5) But if there is another member, also considered reliable, and is carrying, the probability of either of them endangering the assembly goes way, way down, eh? (6) That makes the decision of the group to follow Christ's command on this--and allow the assembly to enjoy the same rights as the general population--an entirely logical, reasonable, and acceptable one.

=======

That is why I would rather be attending a local church where one could pretty much be assured that others in the congregation would likely also be carrying. I would be greatly encouraged if the preacher (who would likely be at most of the meetings) was known to be setting the example.

Of course, for those attenders who have developed an irrational fear of personal firearms, it might be very wise to ask that licensed and well-concealed carry of deadly weapons (CCDW) would be the preferred mode of presence in the assembly. That also improves the situation, for a person with injurious intent would not know from which point a defending action would come. Or several points, hopefully.

I think it is really stupid of a church to make the rule those licensed to carry firearms are not allowed to bring them whenever they desire, especially when thoughtfully concealed.

See what I mean? I think that is why two is the minimum acceptable number acceptable, but more desired. (At the time of Jesus capture, the display of more than a couple of sidearms among his disciples might not have been very propitious to the occasion. They might have been taken to be a band of thieves and robbers. Jesus needed to get to the cross, not be executed summarily right there at His arrest. And actually, only two of the disciples had "happened" to have their sidearms.)

Thank you for your testimony on this issue.

I am not familiar with the symbolism used in the Seder meal.

The Passover meal, Seder, is simply a regular yearly memorial yearly observed (1) on the month and day that the Hebrews avoided the Death Angel and left Egypt under God's protection, and (2) used the same food that the Hebrews ate in their hurry-up departure meal. So the Seder is meant to literally replicate the original meal. The Jews have invented and included other symbolic features, like hiding the leaven, and an extra seat for Elijah (who came long after the Exodus), but these are embroideries of the real truth of delivery from oppression by crying out to God.

. . . what would you use to represent this “what-is-it”?

Manna has nothing to do with this, but was food supplied by God from Heaven, and I don't know why one would even want to try to duplicate or revive something that would turn to wormy garbage if it was kept overnight, and I don't know what the purpose would be. I wouldn't waste time on that, nor of inventing shoes and shirts that wouldn't wear out in forty years. I'd get kind of tired of all this, and want some new clothes, and onions, and garlic as well. Apparently manna was pretty bland and without nuch texture.

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.