The Background on the Eucharist
The Catholic Church firmly believes and professes that in this Sacrament the words of consecration accomplish three wondrous and admirable effects. The first is that the true body of Christ the Lord, the same that was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this Sacrament. The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.
148 The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine. (Catechism of Trent, pg. 147)
The Roman Catholic Church, in their Catechism, make several assertions about the Eucharist (their version of communion) that I see contradictory to what is spoken both by Jesus recorded in Gospels and by His Apostles in the latter books of the New Testament. Each of these contradictory statements, if sided with the Catechism, make the Roman Catholic Church the only functional arm of salvation and forgiveness of sins, rather than God’s grace and Jesus’ intercession.
If a Christian is not Roman Catholic, even if they deeply believe and dedicate in their hearts that Jesus is their messiah and the Son of God, are baptized with that belief, and undergo a true spiritual repentance, they will never see heaven.
This is because by the Roman Catholic’s literal interpretation (CCC 1413) of Christ’s metaphor about flesh and blood, only those who consume Jesus will be saved. Both conveniently and vindictively, only validly ordained Roman Catholic priests can transmute the bread and wine in flesh and blood (1411). Furthermore, the Eucharist itself is another sacrifice for forgiveness of sins (1414).
What is CCC? CCC is shorthand for Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church, which may be found here: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
So, all other followers of Christ, (and I can’t stress this enough) even though they accepted Jesus, were baptized, confessed their sins, and repented, are all going to Hell. In that regard, I ask that you keep an open heart and a discerning mind for my following scripture rooted arguments. I know this is sacred to Roman Catholics, but it damns everyone else and limits the grace of God to a single denomination and through the hands of a select few.
My scriptural arguments against the assertion of transubstantiation are these:
- The elements remain bread and wine.
- Communion is done in remembrance rather than as a sacrifice for sins
- Jesus is the only necessary mediator, not men. Jesus’ sacrifice was once and for all, no continuous sacrificial offering for sin is needed for salvation.
The elements remain bread and wine
As I’ve argued this extensively earlier in the paired “communion” chapter, so I’m going to use two new arguments. First, is that Jesus becoming the elements would require Him, in some form, physically returning to earth. According to the proto-Catechism of Trent, the elements become the literal body and blood of Jesus:
“The Catholic Church firmly believes and professes that in this Sacrament the words of consecration accomplish three wondrous and admirable effects. The first is that the true body of Christ the Lord, the same that was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this Sacrament. The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.
148 The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine.”
Source: http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf
This is in direct conflict to Hebrews 10:
11 Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time, He waits for His enemies to be made a footstool for His feet, 14 because by a single offering He has made perfect for all time those who are being sanctified.
Jesus’ sacrifice is complete, hence why He stated “it is finished” on the cross. Jesus now remains in Heaven, not to return until His enemies are to be conquered. There is no room for any reality where Jesus returns earth in the form of millions of portions bread and wine every week. The last time Jesus was incarnated on Earth, He held to the physical and spatial constraints of His human form. Thus, transubstantiation is not described in this way anywhere in Bible, because it is a wholly irrational assertion.
Communion is done in remembrance rather than as a sacrifice for sins
This brings me to my next argument, which is against that the Eucharist is meant to be a sacrifice rather than an act of reverence. Jesus explicitly states to have communion in remembrance of Him.
Luke 22:19 And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.
Without the literal interpretation of consuming His physical body and blood for salvation, there is now no ground for claiming that bread and wine must be consumed as a sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. Why would Jesus come back to sacrifice Himself again every week for sins already repaid for His chosen when He died on the cross? Scripture makes a fantastic argument against sacrificial Eucharist.
Hebrews 9:25-26 : Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
Hebrews 10: 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, my God.’”
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Jesus’ sacrifice was once and for all, no continuous sacrificial offering for sin is needed for salvation
Why would Jesus have to repeatedly sacrifice Himself for sins when God stated in the New Covenant that He would remember them no more? Jesus died on the cross, paid for the sins of His people with rent flesh and spilled blood, and then sealed His chosen people as His flock with the Holy Spirit. The frequent sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary:
1 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.” 17 Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” 18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
Note how this is in direct contrast with the Catechism:
“1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.”
The Council of Trent (chapter 13), help by magistrates who felt threatened by the Reformers, doubled down on this assertion of the Eucharist as a literal sacrifice. This sacrifice is of the literal body and blood of Christ, which they in turn physically consume, for the practical end of the forgiveness of sins:
If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.”
“And He would also that this sacrement should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins.”
“And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made 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; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”
Canon 3. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.
CANON 4.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.
This interpretation of the Eucharist cannot be reconciled with the scriptural assertion that Jesus constantly intercedes for us all and made a single and permanent sacrifice to redeem our sins. It can also not coexist with God’s proclamation that He will remember the sins of His chosen people no more.
Please understand how it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to reconcile the love and mercy of God and Jesus with the shameless salvo of vindictive curses Catholic doctrine slathers me for simply questioning traditions that are not in clear congruence with scriptures.
Communion Only Becomes Logically Cohesive When Removed From Roman Catholic Tradition
If we are following this cohesive narrative for Jesus’ singular sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, then what would be the competing meaning and purpose behind communion? Let’s look at the Last Supper again in Luke, without the presupposition of a sacrificial eucharist and transubstantiation:
Luke 22: 14 When the hour had come, Jesus reclined at the table with His apostles. 15And He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before My suffering. 16For I tell you that I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
Notice how Jesus says He will not eat the unleavened bread and drink the wine again. As in, this instance is the last time He will do this until while on Earth.
17 After taking the cup, He gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”
My assertion holds true in all three detailed recordings of the Passover. Jesus metaphorically addresses the wine as the blood He would spill for the covenant. Then He hands the cup to His disciples and immediately addresses it as the fruit of the vine, wine.
Matt 26: 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14: 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Also notice that not in a single account did any disciple state that the bread became flesh and the wine became blood. When Jesus said that water would become wine at the wedding in Galilee, did John not make sure to detail that it tasted like wine (John 2:9)? Did Jesus ever speak a miracle in the four Gospels that did not physically manifest itself? Why would His most important one at this time be the first exception? If the last supper was not to introduce a weekly series of human sacrifices of Himself, what was the purpose? Once again:
Luke 12: 19 And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Here it is again from Paul in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and 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 also he took the cup, 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.
What about Paul’s warning against consuming the bread and wine in an unworthy manner in verse 27? I present verses 19-20 and 33-34 for context before and after the verse in question:
“20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”
And
“33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.”
The communion is a community act of reverence in remembrance to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and a community-wide proclamation of devotion to Him and His promise of salvation. Jesus spilled His blood to fulfill the New Covenant, ushering in an era of that salvation for His people. It was not to be treated as a bread and wine buffet.
Pardon my glibness, but people can’t get drunk off of blood, it does not contain any substantial amount of alcohol. Certainly not Jesus’ blood, who wasn’t sporting a destructive blood alcohol content the Passover prior to His death.
Exclusivity of Roman Catholic Doctrine is Challenged by Other Denominations
Now, let’s say transubstantiation was not a transfiguration into the literal body and blood of Christ, but just a spiritual approximation to it. There are Lutherans believe such a tenet as well, is theirs not valid due to a claimed lack of apostolic succession? In that regard, what about the Greek Orthodoxy, who can purportedly trace their line back to the original apostles as well, and believe in Christ’s real presence in the species?
The Salvific Nature of the Eucharist is Not Cohesive or Respected in Roman Catholicism
Even more damning is that the Roman Catholic church had actually decreed the common priesthood (the laity) being church attendees, do not drink the wine, which is only reserved for the celebrating priests.
“There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI).”
They have the impudence to quote Paul, using the vernacular “or” in reference to partaking in the bread and wine.
1 Corinthians 11:24-27: 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.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread “or” drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Playing with semantics to this extent is short-sighted. This interpretation of Paul’s intention does not hold up at all unless you explicitly reject Jesus:
John 6:52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus 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 you.
Jesus clearly states you must consume both. So, either one must acknowledge that Jesus was speaking in metaphor to the Truth and the Holy Spirit, or one must accept that Paul was lying or making a mistake when he said “or” concerning the elements. If it’s the latter case then the Roman Catholic council invoking Magisterium is committing heresy by denying people the ability to share in the drinking of the blood/wine, in reverence to the Lord.
In fact, given the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist for being necessary sacrament for forgiveness of sins and full communion with God, they are effectively obfuscating people’s spiritual regeneration for God by denying the saving blood to the common priesthood of Christians.
How fortunate it is that neither Jesus Christ nor the apostles have ever described transubstantiation, communion for the forgiveness of sins, nor the necessity of consecration from ordained priests.
In the Bible, communion does not need a priest to have significance. It is not necessary for continuous forgiveness of sins. Without extrabiblical tradition it is only for in remembrance and hope of Jesus Christ.
Bonus Round: The Post Apostolic Early Church didn’t Uniformly Believe in Transubstantiation
To the defense of modern Roman Catholics, the Catechism liberally references the writings of Early Church fathers for their narrative of transubstantiation. Reading those writings initially, I actually did begin to believe that following the end of the Apostolic age the Early Church had quickly fallen into this aberrant doctrine.
I was forced to second guess my initial assertion when I came upon a writing called The Didache, which was considered to be the authoritative doctrinal guide to Apostolic teachings. Compiled before the turn of the third century, the Didache would be the definitive proto-catechism of the Early Church. Look at what I found concerning communion:
“Chapter 9: The Eucharist: Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
Chapter 10: Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:
We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant.
Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.”
Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
The Didache presents communion exactly as the apostles did in the Bible! There is no mention of a manifested sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. The bread and wine also remain bread and wine. The name of Jesus is proclaimed just as He commanded in Luke, and the rightness of heart necessary to partake in the communion was not dependent on confession of sins to a priest or belief in transubstantiation, but in being a baptized member of the church.
Looking back at many of the references oft quoted for transubstantiation, I found that many of them were in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which was where Gnosticism was on the rise. Thus, it was wholly possible the Early Church favored stronger allegorical imagery to combat the Gnostic denial of Jesus’ mortal (flesh and blood) existence.
So, with renewed vigor, I went back into the writings of the Early Church fathers. With some diligence, I found that the idea of purely symbolic elements was indeed admitted by multiple Early Church giants:
Tertullian (Against Marcion): “When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.”
And
“In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood.
Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.”
Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho): Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were fore-known to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord.
Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
Clement of Alexandria (Instruction of Clement): “Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. “For Moses,” He says, “gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh, and as flesh, consequently, that has risen through fire, as the wheat springs up from decay and germination; and, in truth, it has risen through fire for the joy of the Church, as bread baked. But this will be shown by and by more clearly in the chapter on the resurrection.
But since He said, “And the bread which I will give is My flesh,” and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh.
Thus, in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”
Source http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html
In that regard, the Roman Catholic Eucharist is explicitly and undeniably not the preserved product of scripture or apostolic tradition. Transubstantiation is a doctrinal aberration that grew in influence and implied spiritual necessity thanks to an unhealthy church culture that vehemently anathematizes anyone who questions their practices.