Refuted: The false doctrine of Catholic "transubstantiation" and Orthodox "Real Presence"
The Lord's Supper: Transubstantiation, Real PresenceRefuted: The Catholic false doctrine of "transubstantiation".
Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".
The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper (the Bible pattern)
Introduction:
The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.
A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:
- No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation. Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.
- Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
- In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
- In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
- In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
- Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
- The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
- Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14)
- The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus' own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice.
- The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice.
- The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion".
- We wonder why Roman Catholics and Orthodox doubt God will grant his full grace and love in the symbolic elements of the bread and the juice? Why is it so hard for them to believe that He grants us the full grace of His Body and Blood via symbols? The water of baptism washes away sin: Acts 2:38; 22:16. You don't get your sins forgiven until you are immersed in water! Water is a symbol of the blood that literally removes sin. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox to believe in "real presence", is as logical as the idea that water of baptism turns into literal blood!
B. Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent history:
Transubstantiation is completely unbiblical, being a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developing to full flower in the 4th century. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way. The early post-apostolic Christians countered that Jesus indeed had ordinary human flesh and blood and they began to emphasize this in the Lord's Supper.
"The early centuries were not exercised with a "moment" of consecration, for they had not become concerned with a conversion in the elements." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)
Orthodox writers misrepresent history, but correctly identify the Lord's Supper as a battle ground between Christians and Gnostics.
"In the early Church, the only people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become man." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 173)
The historically accurate way of saying this would be:
"In the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. Some Gnostics refused to eat the Lord's Supper altogether. Transubstantiation was not an issue that was discussed. By the fourth century, the church drifted away from the original symbolic view of the Apostles and began to teach transubstantiation. Only in the fourth century, were Gnostics isolated in their symbolic view. But amazingly, they were the ones who maintained the Apostolic traditional view. It was the church that had changed her theology towards transubstantiation."
Some Gnostics groups refused to break bread altogether. The only churches today that do not break bread at all, like the Gnostics, are groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Salvation Army. But even still, the 2nd century Gnostics and the church both viewed the elements of the Lord's Supper as symbolic. Transubstantiation was never the issue at this time.
But those Gnostics who did partake of the Table of the Lord, were openly criticized by the church as being inconsistent.
"How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)
Amazingly the language of the Gnostics was the same literalistic language used by the church:
"they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)
In truth, however, this literalistic language was typical of how everyone talked on all sides of the debate before 200AD. But we want to note that the Orthodox statement is quite wrong when they say the Gnostics distinguished between transubstantiation and the symbolic view, for they in fact used the same identical literalistic language as the church. For Roman Catholic and Orthodox historians to be consistent, they would need to admit, that if the literalistic language of "this is my body" proves transubstantiation, then they are forced to admit that the Gnostics at the time of Irenaeus in 180 AD, also believed in transubstantiation. Of course the truth is that both the church and Gnostics taught the symbolic view, while employing the same literalistic language.
In fact, the logic employed by early church leaders like Irenaeus to defeat Gnosticism, were specifically based upon a symbolic, non-transubstantiation view of communion. In other words, Irenaeus' whole argument would have been defeated, if he believed in Transubstantiation. The very logic of Irenaeus' argument is that the Lord's supper is composed of natural elements of common juice and bread.
"He (the Gnostic) acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life?" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)
The Gnostics viewed everything physical as evil. Had Irenaeus argued that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely, while maintaining their view that the body of Christ was not composed of natural elements, but only appeared to be. Had Irenaeus been arguing transubstantiation, the Gnostics would have countered, "We agree and it proves Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood. Just as you (Irenaeus) have argued that the bread and juice must be transubstantiated into something that is undetectable to our senses, we argue that the reason it is undetectable to our senses, is because the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross, like the bread and juice, were not what they appear!
"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies -in reality, not in appearance- are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)
So it was critical that Irenaeus specifically avoid the doctrine of transubstantiation in his recorded argument against the Gnostics.
The way the church refuted the Gnostics was based upon the symbolic view. As late as 200 AD, Tertullian bases the reality of Christ's body on the cross, upon the fact that the bread is symbolic:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
This is the kind of historical information that Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches keep from their people. Both the early church and the Gnostics rejected transubstantiation and took the symbolic view.
C. Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:
Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
ntx-communion-transubstantiation
