Transubstantiation

:Let's first look at what transpired during communion.

 

To understand the communion celebration there are multiple things we must understand.   We will only address a couple of those things. 

 

First, it's important to understand a Jewish Marriage.  When a husband proposed to his wife, he would offer her a cup of wine.   When she drank of that cup she was signifying the commitment to that marriage.  It was as if she said "I DO".   From that point forward the bride and groom signed a marriage contract.   The groom would then go and prepare a place for his bride just as scripture says Jesus goes to prepare a place for us.  The groom would then come back at a time unannounced, just as Jesus will come back at a time unannounced.   

​

Now, before we go any further, we have to look at the CUP OF WINE and understand what this was symbolic of.    What was the cup of wine symbolic of?   First, we must understand wine to a Jewish person.   Wine had several different definitions.  The common Hebrew word for wine is yayin, from a root meaning "to boil up," "to be in a ferment." Others derive it from a root meaning "to tread out," and hence the juice of the grape trodden out.  Another Hebrew term for wine was HEMER.  It means "THE BLOOD OF GRAPES".   

 

There is a powerful scene in the agony in the garden when Jesus is crying out to his father.  He says, "TAKE THIS CUP FROM ME".  What was that cup?  It was the cup of wrath that was going to be poured out on him at the cross.  We read about the cup of wrath in Revelation 14, Jeremiah 25 and other places.   The cup of wrath was the sin of the world.   It was Jesus blood that was "poured out" at the cross.  He had to die on the cross to pay for our sin.

​

Now take a moment and reflect on the last supper scene.  Jesus offered the disciples a cup of wine.  It was actually the 3rd of 4 cups they passed.  (For more information study the Jewish passover).  When Jesus was offering the cup of wine to the disciples, he was in essence proposing to them.  He was asking for a "marriage commitment" as a groom would propose to his wife.   That's why he said, "This is a new covenant in my blood".    The disciples were making a "marriage commitment" when they drank the cup.   When they drank of it they were agreeing to participate in the sufferings of Christ.  How do we know this.?  Earlier in Matthew 20 Jesus said, "Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, [a]and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”  At the time they didn't get it.  They said, “We are able.”  Why, because they thought Jesus was going to offer them something different..    He then says to them... "“You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"... The point is, they had no idea that they were going to have to participate in the sufferings of Christ.   By the way, we are also to participate in the sufferings of Christ.  Scripture says, " but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy."

​

The idea of drinking a sip of wine means nothing unless we are willing to participate in the sufferings of Christ.   Most Catholics start communion at 2nd grade.  They have no understanding of the significance of participating in the Lord's suffering.  They have no idea what it means to drink of that cup.   Nor do most Christians. 

​

So the wine represents the commitment to the marriage covenant between us and Christ.   That we will participate in his sufferings on this side of earth.  The disciples did just that.  All but one died for their faith.   

​

Now, let's look at the bread.  The bread all throughout the bible was symbolic of sustenance provision, life,  etc.   When they wandered in the wilderness God provided "bread from heaven".   In the New testament when they followed Him to the wilderness he also provided "bread from heaven".   Pay close attention to what happens after Jesus feeds them in the wilderness.  The next day they come begging him for bread.  He said, "“Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.".   They were coming to him for the wrong reasons.  They were coming to "GET STUFF".  He then says, Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”  Again,  bread was a symbol in the old and new testament of life, nourishment, or sustenance, satisfaction, provision.  That’s why when Jesus offered the bread, he’s saying.. When you accept this, the only nourishment, the only joy, the only hope you will find in this world is me.  Nothing else will satisfy.

​

Here is what's wild.   The Blood means death.  Ultimately participating in his sufferings.  However, the bread means life.  That is counter-intuitive.   However, we learn in the beatitudes Jesus says, "Blessed are you when you are persecuted for righteousness sake".   The word Blessed is the word Makarios.  It means blessed, but it also means happy, joyful, and so happy and joyful others will be envious.  That is a total picture of the early church.  From 33 ad to 300 ad Christians were severely persecuted for their faith, but their joy through that persecution caused many others to become believers.

 

The idea with all this is that through our sufferings for Christ (the blood), we will get life, sustenance, joy, peace, etc. (the bread).
 

Neither one had anything to do with the actual body and blood of Christ.  Actually, eating of flesh and drinking of blood was against Levitical law.   When we take the bread we are saying to Jesus, you are the only sustenance, satisfaction, provision we need.  Nothing on earth will satisfy.  When you take the wine, you are agreeing to a marriage relationship that means participating in his suffering until we go to be with the Lord or until he comes again.   

​

No early new testament group of people believed in transubstantiation.  Again, it was against Levitical law.   It actually wasn't even made Catholic doctrine until the 12th century by pope Innocent III.  Just a side note.  Pope Innocent III was one of the most evil popes.   See our page on HARD FACTS for more information.

​

SO, WHAT DO CATHOLICS TEACH and what else can we learn.?

​

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

​

The term "Real Presence," when used by Roman Catholics, refers to Christ's physical presence in the form of the bread and the wine that have been transubstantiated into His literal body and blood.

​

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that 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 "(CCC, 1376).

​

Because they are the presence of Christ himself, Catholics worship and adore the elements.

The Mass contains a series of rituals leading up to the Lord's Supper which also contains a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ.  Furthermore, transubstantiation states that the substance of the elements are miraculously changed even though their appearance is not. In other words, the bread and wine will appear as bread and wine under close scientific examination, but the true substance is mystically the Body and Blood of Christ.  Synonymous with Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Real Presence.  Where transubstantiation is the process of the change, the real presence is the result of that change. In other words, the doctrine of the real presence states that the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Christ in bodily form as a result of the process of transubstantiation. Roman Catholicism states that the incarnation of Christ itself, where Jesus was a man but contained an invisible divine nature, is analogous to the doctrine of the real presence.

​

Some of the verses used to substantiate this teaching are the following:

• Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

• John 6:52-53, "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.'"

• 1 Cor. 11:27, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

​

Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ?  Let's take a look.

​

First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching.   We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood: 

​

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). 

​

He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

​

But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood..." and "This is my body..." This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms:  "I am the bread of life,"(John 6:48); "I am the door," (John 10:7,9); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc.  In the context of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood (John 6:53).  He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, "...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63).

​

Second - the elements of the communion supper were still referred to as bread and wine

After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine.

​

"And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom," (Matt. 26:26-29).

​

After Jesus said, "This is my blood," (Matt. 26:28), he said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom," (Matt. 26:29).  Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood?  He called it wine.

​

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup," (1 Cor. 11:23-28).

​

If the elements were changed and were really the body and blood, then why does Paul refer to the element of bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ?

 

Third - there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed

There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ.  Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood?  There is no indication that they thought this.

 

Fourth - there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements

We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements.  The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass.  Catholicism says, "Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as "latria," which may be given to God alone."1 Where is the worship given the Sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament?  It is not there.

 

Fifth - the supper was instituted before Jesus' crucifixion

The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ.  Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, somehow, the crucified body and blood of Christ.  But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified?  Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread, it actually became His sacrificial body--even though the sacrifice had not yet happened?  Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine, that it became His actual sacrificial blood - even though the sacrifice had not yet happened?  That would make no sense at all.

 

Sixth - the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood.  Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.  Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism.  What does the Scripture say concerning this?

 

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

 

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ.  To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

​

Some Roman Catholics respond by saying that Jesus had instituted the new and everlasting covenant in which the sacrificed body and blood of Christ was reality. Therefore, because it was a new covenant, it was also the sacrificed body and blood. But this cannot work because the new covenant could not yet be instituted until after the death of Christ  as the Scriptures state.

 

"And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it," (Heb. 9:15-16).

 

Therefore we can conclude that the Levitical law was still in effect because the new covenant had not yet been established. So, the Roman Catholic position would have Jesus himself violating  Old Testament law by having the disciples drink the blood--if it were literal blood.

Yet another response is that in Mark 7:19 it says, "'because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?' (Thus He declared all foods clean)." The problem with this response is that it tends to set scripture against scripture and doesn't really address the issue of Leviticus 17:14 and the particularly relevant comments by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20 also forbidding the eating of blood.  Therefore, it seems that Jesus was declaring all animals were clean in the sense that they do not defile a person.  Again, in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the apostle gives instructions and said, "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood," (Acts 15:19-20). Some say this refers only to animal blood.  But if that is so, then "all foods clean" (ref. Mark 7:19) would have to include animal blood.  But, that doesn't make sense in light of the instruction is still to abstain from drinking blood. 

 

Seventh - it is a violation of the incarnation

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This "became flesh" involves what is known as the hypostatic Union.  This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time, and He will forever be God and man.

 

Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place.  This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man - since a man can only be it one place at one time.  Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.

​

But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always--even to the ends of the earth?  Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere?  No, this is not what is stated.

 

The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum.  This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ.  It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature.  It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ.  Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent--not in His human nature but in His divine nature.

​

To make this more clear, let's look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum:

• John 17:5, "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

• John 3:13,"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man."

 

Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world.  He also claims to have descended from heaven, but how could these be true since He is a man?  The answer is that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ.  Therefore, the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven.  But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception.  Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union).  It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another--the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite.  If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity.  This means that He must be localized, and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation.  Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture.

​

Eighth - the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ

The Bible tells us:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"(Heb. 10:10-14).

 

In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ.  In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass.  This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all, and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.  It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace.  The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.  We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith - not by a ceremony.

 

Conclusion

It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical.  For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced.

Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us; and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord's supper.  It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works.  Instead, we are made right before God by faith.

• "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24).

• "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).

• "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).

• "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith," (Rom. 4:13).

• "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).

• "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Rom. 10:9).

 

Information gathered from CARM   Visit  https://carm.org/catholic/transubstantiation-real-presence