HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations


For Catholics, the Eucharist, the ceremony that celebrates the sacrifice of Jesus with bread and wine in imitation of the Last Supper where Jesus said, “This is my body” over bread and “This is my blood”, over wine and gave them to his friends to eat and drink, is the centre of Christian life. Protestants, though less strongly, lay great stress on its importance too.
The Eucharist or Holy Communion has great meaning for many for it represents Jesus giving himself for them and can spread and deepen the faith. It is an expression of the heart of the Christian faith. It symbolises unity and that attracts disciples and warms people inside.
This book is written in the hope that one day the only purpose of bread will be to be food and that the only purpose of wine will be drink. The book shows that Jesus Christ even if he did establish the rite of celebrating with bread and wine in his memory did not institute the Mass for the Mass is the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ into which bread and wine have been turned and though Protestants celebrate a Eucharist this is not the same as the Mass. If the Son of God did not establish or want the Mass then it follows that the spiritual benefits Catholics get from it come from themselves if they would only admit it. The Mass cannot unite with God if it is not of divine origin. This is a warning about how religious feeling can be presented as the work of God. It is not fair on us Atheists that people do that. The honesty we must have in ourselves is the honesty we also expect from others.
Nobody preparing for ordination to the priesthood, which is mainly for celebrating the Eucharist, should be without this book.
The infallible decrees of the Catholic Church come from the book, Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism.
In Session Thirteen, Chapter 1, of the Council of Trent we read, “In the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things” (page 158).
Canon 2 of Session 13 curses anybody who “denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema” (page 160).
In Canon 3 of Session 22, anybody who says that “the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitionary sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities” is anathema (page 138).
The Council of Trent contradicted the words of Christ, “This is my blood given for the forgiveness of your sins”, when it brought out a decree condemning the Protestant doctrine that the Eucharist gave forgiveness of all sin as the main benefit (Session XIII, Canon 5). The Church held that you could have no mortal sin on your soul while taking communion for it was given only for venial sinners that they might be pardoned. But Jesus could and would have made the sacrament a means for the forgiveness of all sin. It makes sense that the sacrament should do that when the death of Christ was intended to remove sin.
Roman Catholicism struggles hard to defend transubstantiation, the notion that the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are literally changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ when the priest says, “This is my body”, and “This is my blood.”
She has only seven infallibly interpreted Bible texts but the ones that allegedly testify to transubstantiation being true are not among them. It is not heresy to say that it is unbiblical but it is heresy to say that it is anti-biblical for if it is then it is not true even according to Catholic standards.
Catholics say, “It is wrong to argue that the words, “This is my body,” are not to be taken literally because, “I am the door”, is not to be taken as a declaration that Jesus had been transubstantiated into a door. It is more likely that Jesus would become food than a door so we know that if one is literal the other need not be. Moreover, Jesus made it clear in his context that he did not intend to become a door.” Jesus turning himself into bread is as useless as himself turning himself into a door or a statue for it is God that is needed. Grace is the presence of God guiding and helping you in your life not energy and it alone is necessary. And nothing in the Bible indicates Jesus wanted to become our food.
We will go through the Bible passages that allegedly prove her dogma of transubstantiation and discover that it was never given by Christ or known in the primitive Church.
* At Jesus’ trial proving his heresy to have him put to death was impossible (Matthew 26:59, 60). It wouldn’t have been had he advocated or vowed to advocate the worship of bread and wine that has allegedly been changed into him which is the capital crime of idolatry in Jewish Law (Deuteronomy 13). Judas would have told the Jews if Jesus had been claiming to make bread into his body.
* The Church believes that the bread and wine of communion become the New Passover Lamb Jesus for the Passover meal was decreed by God to picture that this would happen before it happened.
It was the lamb that would have pictured this best for the lamb was a sacrifice to save the household from destruction and also because it was flesh. The bread and wine were only to picture mourning and getting the strength to leave Egypt and its evil. Jesus then would have turned the lamb into his body. The bread and wine are to be taken in mourning and in haste for the journey out to the Garden when Jesus’ passion will start. This implies that if the rite is to be repeated after it is only a reminder. It was the bread of affliction and not the bread of joyfully eating the risen body of Jesus Christ though Catholics say it is the risen body that was made present at the first Mass said by Jesus and at every Mass since.
Jews always traditionally said of the bread, “This is the bread of affliction that our fathers ate in Egypt”. This parallels Jesus saying it was his body which will be afflicted. It shows that he changed from the old symbolism to the new. There is no risen body in it. It is not a thanksgiving celebration. Thanks might be given before it but the service itself is mourning. It is not about thanks at all. Catholic doctrine is wrong for saying that it is all about thanks. That is what they call it the Eucharist for.
* 1 Corinthians 11:26, 27, 29: This teaches that whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. That is the person who eats and does not discern or recognise the body of Christ receives punishment from God.
The unworthy way must refer to the fact that the Corinthians were overindulging in the bread and drink and being selfish which was terrible for they were meant to use these things to remember the body and blood of Jesus. Instead of eating them to honour and remember the body and blood of the Lord they were misusing them. That is why Paul says that he will not commend the people for their behaviour for Jesus took bread and said it was his body and to do this in his memory. So they are not remembering. Obviously, when they were allowed to take so much bread and drink with them it is clear that neither the apostles or themselves believed that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Then there would only be need for a small quantity and too much means there will be waste and you can’t make waste of the body or blood of the saviour or worse people getting drunk on the blood of Jesus.
Some say Paul may simply have had sinners in mind. The Bible teaches that the sinner does not know or recognise God (1 John 4:8). The sinner is a person who makes a declaration of independence from God and so ceases to recognise God as king. This however does not support the Catholic belief that serious sinners should stay away from the bread and wine. Paul said that nobody is worthy to have Jesus in their hearts and what matters is trying to get rid of sin. So if you are a sinner and examine yourself and find that you want rid of sin and even if you are too vile and weak to repent and want the bread to help you come to Jesus better and give him more power to heal your life you can still partake.
The sinner who receives communion but who does not recognise Christ’s crucified body as the payment for his sins eats damnation to himself.
There were people in Paul’s day who did not believe that Jesus was a flesh and blood person. They thought he was a spirit in disguise and accordingly they scoffed at the resurrection. In chapter 15, of this epistle, Paul attacks the popular view that thrived among the Corinthians that the resurrection of the body is nonsense. Paul is just condemning the hypocrisy of eating the symbolic body of Christ while believing this. The symbols are holy and are not to be treated insultingly just like it would be dishonouring one’s father to desecrate his photo. If they are not symbols, but reminders, the same holds true.
Paul does not mention what is in the cup. It is possible it was not wine but water or something. Paul did say in Romans that if a brother does not like the believers in Jesus drinking wine they should not do it so as to avoid giving offense to anybody, in particular, those who were weak in faith. He said that the gospel was nothing more than the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This rules out any interpretation of Paul or John 6 that suggests that Jesus' flesh really can be eaten in the form of bread. The Catholics admit that they did not understand transubstantiation for the doctrine had to be developed. The early believers would have had no answer if they were accused of cannibalism.
* Some think that Hebrews 6:4 mentions the Eucharist of the Catholics. It speaks of those who have received the heavenly gift. It is argued that since the bread and wine don’t come from Heaven the only food that can be this gift is the eucharistic flesh of Jesus. But the heavenly gift may be grace which is tasted by the soul. God is in Heaven and makes all things from there so we can say the world came from Heaven.
* In John Chapter 6 Jesus says he is the bread of life and he bread he will give is his flesh for the life of the world. The Jews murmur about how he can do that and he tells them that unless they eat him and drink his blood they will not have life in them. No Christian has ever taught that non-Christians need to do that to be saved. This is the key to the interpretation. The food is grace for nothing else can be spiritual food and Jesus’ body and blood are identified with grace because Jesus giving his body and blood for us in sacrifice on the cross is the fountain of grace for they alone earn salvation and grace for us. The body and blood are grace for us; they are food and drink for our souls.
Eating Jesus and drinking his blood is like the Jewish metaphor that to do somebody great injury is to eat them and drink their blood. Jesus is telling the Jews that they must put him to death and separate his blood from his body to be saved and that this body and blood is the food or grace of everlasting life.
Catholics might say that you will not have life if you are a Catholic and won’t go to communion but Jesus didn’t meant that by what he said to the Jews for none of them were going to become Catholics and it took the Church centuries to work out its ideas about communion. John 6 is not Eucharistic.
The Catholic view that Jesus answered the Jews who murmured about how he could give his flesh to eat when he said more strongly that they must eat his body and drink his blood proved he meant it literally is the crux of the arguments about the interpretation of John 6. But it is just a guess for you see people asking questions and Jesus seeming to answer them but away off on another topic in this gospel. For example, Jesus met a Samaritan woman at a well and Jesus told her he would leave her never having to visit a well again for he would give her magic water. The Samaritan woman asked him to give her this magic water thinking he meant literal water but he seems to humour her and say he will do it. We realise that he didn’t mean literal water in his “reply”. It was not really a reply at all. It only looked like one. And as for John 6 we have no reason to think Jesus paid any attention to or even heard what the Jews were asking unlike with the Samaritan woman. If there had been a tradition for magic water Jesus would have been taken literally. It is only because we exercise commonsense that we understand his reply. But nothing in the words proves us right.
The fact that the Bible calls the Eucharist bread and wine after its alleged changing and that John 6:63 may deny that Jesus’ sermon in John 6 teaches transubstantiation proves that transubstantiation cannot be proven from the Bible even if it is in it. The law of economy, bids us to take the simplest interpretation and that is that the Eucharist is symbolic or emblematic. Rome has wandered from the safe path.
John 6:29. "Jesus ... said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Bare belief in Jesus is claimed to be enough. This denies that sacraments are needed for salvation. This verse is the key to unlocking the symbolism in John 6 about the eating of Jesus' body and the drinking of his blood.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is not in the Bible. Jesus was unlikely to have created the sacrament of the Eucharist which requires that a person be holy for he hated needless public displays of virtue and would not have created another device for making it happen. The Eucharistic sacrament is a later invention even if Jesus did give out bread and wine at the Last Supper.
At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me”, - that is do this little symbolic ritual or reminder in my memory. The Catholic Mass is not honouring this command because though it does commemorate Jesus it dishonours that memory and is not what Jesus wanted.
Paul, in the earliest account of the Last Supper reported that Jesus said of the cup, “This is the new covenant in my blood.” This is proves that the sense of the word is, is represents not is turned into for the cup could not literally be the new pact.
Catholics say that this proves nothing of the kind for Paul was only giving a rough quote from what was said at the Last Supper for he omitted to say that Jesus said, “This is my blood.” This is unlikely and Paul would not have been so careless in such an important matter for he had a lot to say about the Eucharist and about it being wrong to drink the cup in the sin of unbelief for it insulted the blood of the Lord. It makes no difference that he says that he is writing to people who were already acquainted with the rite. Paul was only giving what he considered to be the essentials of what was said at the Last Supper and if he left out, “This is my blood,” then it was not an essential. The Catholic objection is mere speculation and is therefore a failure.
Paul evidently thought that the cup being the blood was not important. What was important was it being the covenant. To take the cup then is to become part of the covenant with God. The covenant with God is, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” It requires you to obey God in all things. 
The Catholics say we can’t argue that since the covenant with God element was what mattered that the elements can’t be the body of Jesus or his blood for they could be an expression of making a covenant with God whether they are just bread and wine or not.
Now the covenant would be made before communion. To take communion then only reaffirms it. So communion then is not an essential pact with God. Paul says Jesus stressed it being the pact. When he stressed something needless it shows that Jesus and Paul did not believe that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ. If they were, the divine presence within them would be the essential and most important emphasis. Paul’s words prove that the bread and wine are not Jesus Christ.
Paul the apostle wrote that for the sake of brethren weak in faith we must not eat forbidden foods if they find that offensive or drink wine. "The right thing to do is to eat no meat or drink no wine if it causes your brother to stumble or to weakens him or offends him" (Romans 14:21). This is incompatible with the notion that Christians are obligated to bless wine in memory of Jesus. It is incompatible with the notion that the wine is not wine but the blood of Jesus Christ.
Catholics will retort, Paul is referring to life in general and does not have the Eucharist in mind here. But how do they know that? If a man is offended by a friend having a drink he will be more offended if that friend drinks wine that is supposed to be the blood of Jesus! Remember too that in those days, the Christians remembered Jesus by eating bread and wine as part of a community meal. Paul did mean drinking at these meals as well as outside of them.
The Church says that the early Church believed the bread and wine were truly the body and blood of Christ. It was left to the Church in later centuries to work out that the bread and wine really change but do not physically change. Thus if the early Church believed the bread and wine became Jesus it had no way of explaining to people that they should not take this as cannibalistic. And nobody understands the alleged change of the bread and wine anyway. The Church calls it a mystery.
Had the apostles professed transubstantiation the Jews would have accused them of worshipping bread and wine. The apostles would not have been allowed into the Temple which was closed to idolaters. They did not believe Jesus was God when they were welcome. They would not have worshipped the Eucharist unless it was the body and blood of a Jesus who was God so when they did not believe Jesus was God they did not worship the Eucharist.
God is so opposed to idolatry that he said through the prophet Moses that an altar to which anybody took a tool to couldn’t be used and was forbidden (Exodus 20:25). Was this because the surrounding nations used such altars? The Bible doesn’t say so. They probably carved images into their altars. God here goes as far as to forbid any carving at all. An altar couldn’t be hewn. It is more probable that God made this rule to impress on Israel how wrong it was to use any images – even innocent ones in worship. Would a God who was so stern and strict really send Jesus into the world with a promise to turn bread and wine into his body and blood?
Jesus made it clear that he was the centre of Christian life. The Bible and the Church both say that the Eucharist can be done without and is not essential to salvation so how could it be the centre of Christian life when it is non-essential?
Paul told his Christians that if they sincerely confess that Jesus is Lord and sincerely believe that God raised him from the dead they will be saved. He said that if they call on the name of the Lord they will be saved and that if they do not get a preacher they will never know to do this (Romans 10:9-18). Some say he is only saying that if you see that Jesus is the risen Lord, its a sin to start to think otherwise for that would be the sin of dishonesty. They want to put a moral slant on his words. They don't want to admit that he was saying that the sinner who believes will be saved and the sinner who does not believe will not be and will be punished and lost forever for simply not knowing and therefore being unable to believe. That would be Paul's bigoted wishful thinking. They are wrong because the context is about people who don't know and who are saved by believing. It is not about people who see that Jesus was the risen Lord and who refuse to accept him. Anyhow, Paul regarded dogmatism as the centre of Christian life - not the Eucharist!  
According to Matthew 26:26-29 at the last supper, Jesus took bread and said, “Take, eat; this is My body”. He said over the cup, “This is My blood of the new covenant which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. The Bible translations differ about whether Jesus said his body/blood is being or will be given up. Whatever it is, and if he meant it literally then he turned the bread and wine into his pre-resurrection body which contradicts the Catholic doctrine that it is the glorious and semi-spiritual resurrected body of Christ that is really present in the Eucharist (page 22, Is Jesus Really Present in the Eucharist?). A dead Christ would be no longer Christ but would be his remains while the Church holds that Jesus promised his Church would “eat me” (John 6:57). Dead flesh and dead blood will not be used to feed us spiritually so they are not present in the Eucharist. Jesus would be more likely to give us his glorious and risen and living flesh and blood. If Rome is infallible when she proclaims the living Jesus to be our food, then the Eucharistic words of Jesus are heretical and she ought to consider excommunicating Christ.

Hans Kung wrote in On being a Christian that when Jesus used the words flesh and body to describe communion he would have meant it in the Hebrew understanding that flesh and body meant the entire person. So this is my body means this is me (page 234). But nobody never used blood as an expression to represent their entire being! Today we use flesh and blood to mean entire people. We use the word flesh. But we do not use the word blood. Kung is wrong. Even if flesh or blood meant entire person, Jesus might still have used the expressions symbolically. Any words or expression can be given a symbolic sense.

The Catholic Church’s best theological encyclopedia tells us that when Jesus said the bread was his body and the wine his blood the Semitic expression behind his reference to the blood indicated blood especially that resulted from a violent death so it is the pre-resurrection body of Jesus that is made present if anything is (page 451, Encyclopedia of Theology, Edited by Karl Rahner, Burns and Oates, London, 1977).
The Catholic Church is taking the words about it being the body or blood literally and ignoring the rest of the words which say it was the pre-resurrection body and blood. When the Church’s own interpretation cannot work, the Mass must be contrary to the Bible.
The Church of Rome has a nerve to say that the words Jesus said over the bread and wine were meant literally when she only takes bits of them that way. We wonder if there is honesty in a person who takes, “This is My body”, literally and the rest of the sentence non-literally. Jesus was talking figuratively when he said his piece over the wafer and cup. That the Church recites the entire words that Jesus used and can still fool the public is a warning about how dangerous and cultic religious faith is. It pollutes the reason. It warps it.
Roman apologists inform us that when Jesus stated, “This is My body”, instead of, “This is symbolically my body”, when there were about forty ways of saying this in the Greek language in which the gospels were written that this backs their doctrine that Jesus said that the bread was literally his body (Radio Replies, Vol 2, Question 768). Really? When I say of a drawing, “That is me”, instead of saying that it is an image of me do I mean it literally?
The ex-priest Bart Brewer, argued that when Jesus said this is my body/blood he was speaking figuratively for he did not say touto gignetai, this has become, but touto esti, which means this symbolises. Touto esti simply means is. Despite this, Catholics argue that if Jesus meant the bread stands for his body this would have been made clear in the Greek. Not necessarily even if this could be right.
The Gospel of Matthew (and in Mark) Jesus says that the cup is the fruit of the vine after Roman Catholics say he said it became his blood. He says he will not drink it from now until the day he drinks new wine in the kingdom of the Father. There is nothing in Matthew that hints that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus so that means that we ought to take Jesus literally when he calls the wine wine. This was in a gospel for Heaven’s sake and nobody would leave out such an important doctrine as transubstantiation. There is no evidence that the gospels had the one author, God, or that they are to be read as one account so we should take it that Matthew denies transubstantiation even if another gospel affirms it. Remember, the fewer miracles you believe in the better so if the Bible has disagreements over transubstantiation the denial of it should be accepted as the correct position.
When Jesus says he will drink the new wine in the kingdom it is clear that he means wine for entertainment. So the wine in front of him is “old” wine or its shabby wine. It is not his sacred blood. This emphasises for us that it is real wine and not blood under the appearance of wine. Would Jesus look forward to drinking his own blood in the kingdom? No. Mark says that Jesus said this is my blood first and then said he wouldn’t drink it again until the kingdom. So did Jesus drink his own blood? If Mark believed what Catholics believe he wouldn’t have put that in his gospel for it would only encourage those who held that the bread and wine didn’t become Jesus. If he was that keen on putting it in he might have tried to explain it.
In Luke, Jesus at the start of supper gives a cup to his disciples. He tells them to share it and swears that he will not drink wine again until the kingdom of God comes. Then later he gives the bread and then he gives them a cup as before but this time he says it is the new covenant in his blood. It would make more sense if they all drank the transmuted wine which was really his blood in the kingdom and not real wine. Jesus makes it clear that it is wine in every sense of the word that will be drunk when the kingdom comes. This is a hint that Heaven is not a eucharistic banquet though Catholic theologians say it is.
Jesus said that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. The separation of the body and blood signifies death and so does the separate bread and wine. Would Jesus really turn food and drink into dead meat and dead blood? In the allegedly Eucharistic John 6 we read that he promised to give his living self as spiritual food. John 6 makes it unlikely that the other gospels and Paul posited a transformation of the bread and wine.
If Jesus meant transubstantiation by the words he used at the last supper then he would not have spoken the way he did. He would have made a better and more suitable choice of words. He would have said of the bread for example, “Take, eat, God, turn this bread into my body by your power. When you do this say, ‘God, turn the bread into the body of Jesus by your power as we do this in memory of him who gave his body on the cross for us for the forgiveness of sins’”. It is a mistake to have a priest saying, “This is my body.”
At what moment does the change occur? The Church says it happens during the words of consecration. But at what point?
If it happens at the word this then we have the bread becoming Jesus before it is said to be his body upon pronunciation of the word this. At the word this the rest of the wording is implied because the intention is activated then. But then the bread would have to be the body of Christ before the bread is said to be the body. If the word this is enough then why bother with the word at all? Why not just say it is the intention of the priest even without the words that effects the change. But you will notice that the words, “This is my body”, refer to the change taking place at This which makes no sense. The this describes what is there now and it is the body.
If it happens at the word body then we have the problem then that the change should happen at this. “Change into his body”, makes the change happen at the letter “y”. The Church claims that, “This is my body,” and, “Change into his body”, mean the same thing though only the first words are allowed. Yet there are problems with, “This is my body”, not, “Change into his body”. The Church says the two statements mean the same thing but how can they when they transform at different points? “This is my body”, does not mean to transform so the Eucharist is symbolical.
Catholics start adoring the bread when the priest is in the middle of saying the words. When Church liturgy has never specified any point as to when the worship should start it warns us that the Eucharist is an invention of the Church. It leaves the people adoring what they have no reason to think has become Jesus yet.
At the last supper Jesus broke the bread FIRST. He stated that the rite represented his violent death by which the bread and wine were separate as his body and blood would be on the cross. If he had been celebrating the Catholic Mass he would have said the bread was his body and then broken it up to facilitate his disciples for eating it. Why? Because as God asked that only perfect animals with no broken bones could be sacrificed so Jesus avoided having his bones broken on the cross so that he could be sacrificed to God. The John gospel tells us that Jesus died before the soldiers could break his legs to fulfil the prophecy that the body wouldn’t be broken. However Jesus breaking the bread before he said it was his body indicates that Jesus expected to be broken up. He could have waited till after he said it was his body so the timing is very significant and he did state that his little rite had hidden meanings. The Catholic Church says that because the communion wafers are the one body of Christ that dividing them does not break Jesus up. Yet many Churches and ancient Bibles had the following Eucharistic formula, “This is my body which is broken for you.” The Revised Standard Version says this reading comes from many ancient authorities whose works were looked at to get at the original text of the New Testament. Jesus would not say his body was broken for he would want the focus to be on his body that was present and couldn’t be broken. Why would he want to symbolise and refer to the breaking? It wasn’t important. But he would say it if the communion was simply a commemoration and didn’t have the magical powers that the Catholic Church ascribes to it.
When the oldest account of the supper in Paul refutes transubstantiation how can we expect the Gospels to prove it?
The apostles were opposed to the drinking of blood (Acts 15). Is this proof that they didn’t support transubstantiation? Catholics reply, “No. The ban only applies to physical contact with blood which doesn’t happen with the Eucharistic blood. Only the appearances of wine are actually touched, smelled, tasted and seen. The ban which goes back to Old Testament law only meant ordinary blood that looks like blood for transubstantiation was unknown in those times so drinking blood under the appearance of wine couldn’t have been prohibited for it was a different chalice of wine. Moreover, even if it had been, the apostles would have assumed that the eucharistic blood of Christ is an exception made by the Lord who has the power to prevent whatever harm drinking blood was supposed to do and who can change such laws.” But it would have been the case that since the apostles themselves would not have understood transubstantiation but simply believed wine was blood if Jesus said so would not have been able to believe this about the wine because the law forbade blood. Even the Church says they were not theologians but just the simple witnesses of a special message from Heaven. Also, the Law of Moses never said that drinking blood was harmful but only that it showed a lack of respect for life for life was in the blood and was therefore forbidden. Had the apostles believed and said they were drinking blood even if the Jews thought this belief ridiculous it was still undermining the Law of Moses.
Hebrews 13:9 says that Christians are not to be devoted to food that brings no spiritual benefit to those who observe the laws concerning it. One might argue, “This is usually taken to refer to the abrogation of the Jewish food laws. But if you believe in the food laws they will benefit you that way if you keep them. But this is food that does not benefit even if you do believe. This can only mean that the Eucharist does not give grace”. The Catholics shout, “But what Eucharist or Eucharists? The pagans do Eucharists too.” Would Christians have to be told to keep away from pagan eucharists?
Let us study the doctrine of 1 Corinthians 10 on the Supper.
1 Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing upon which he ask [God’s] blessing, does it not mean we participate in and share a fellowship (a communion) in the blood of Christ?” The word rendered participating and sharing here is koinonia in the original Greek which simply means fellowship. Taking communion is a sign of friendship with the man of flesh and blood represented by the bread and cup. This says nothing about the Roman dogma. There is nothing in it to show that it teaches it.
After this verse, we read that all who share in this BREAD – not flesh - are one body. Now, if Jesus were really present in the Eucharist it would have been more natural to say that we are one because we all share in the one flesh because taking bread even communion in itself does not make us one body. It is having our spirits open to the grace of the body of Jesus that shapes us into one body.
Then Paul says that all who eat the meat of the sacrifice at the altar of Israel are participants in the altar. The eating of the bread and drinking the cup have to be linked to this verse. The theme is participating in the sacrifice by offering yourself through it or Jesus offering his life for you and offering your offering to God with his own. Catholics say this authorises the Catholic altars for Mass. But as Jesus was a priest, the altar Christians share in is the cross.
They reply that the Hebrew altar was used for communion and animals were never killed on it. The animal’s life not the meat on the altar was the real sacrifice. The meat was only a token of the sacrifice and a sign for offering yourself with the sacrifice. The altar was for communion so Jesus’ altar the cross must be for communion too meaning that we do eat him. But Paul never said that they are parallel in everything.
The sacrificial meat of the Hebrews which was not God could have administered the same grace as the Eucharist of the Christians if the Eucharist was God.
For the animal sacrifices to parallel Jesus’ right if they were mere communion Jesus’ body would need to be killed and then crucified for they were killed and then thrown on the altar.
Catholic theology holds that it is the glorified, spiritualised and resurrected body of Jesus Christ that is present in the Eucharist. In Paul’s theology, the resurrection body comes from the physical body and is more like a spirit than a body. One cell from the corpse would be enough to make it which is why it is safe to say that Paul probably did not believe that when Jesus was raised he left his tomb empty. If he just didn’t deny it, then its an open question. But there is another surprise about the resurrection body. It seems there is no blood in it! He wrote, “I tell you this, brethren, flesh and blood cannot [become partakers of eternal salvation and] inherit or share in the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable (that which is decaying) inherit or share in the imperishable (the immortal)” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Christians argue that he only means that flesh and blood as they are now cannot inherit eternal life but need to be changed. So they interpret it as saying they are changed into another kind of flesh and blood. But Paul wrote that the resurrection body is spiritual. Flesh has been used to make it but it is not flesh though it can materialise flesh. Flesh has been turned into spirit. This is something we cannot understand. It would be stupid of Paul to say that flesh and blood cannot enter Heaven if he meant that another kind of it can and Paul did promise that he would only write what was lucid and clear. He said “flesh and blood” not “flesh and blood as they are now” so he did not mean the latter. The Christians are wrong and Paul meant that the resurrection body is not flesh and blood. It is something derived from them but not like them at all. He declared that Jesus, the new Adam, has become a life-giving spirit unlike the old Adam who was a death-giving man of flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Jesus is a spirit-being therefore his body and blood are not present in the Eucharist. Paul didn't believe that they were except maybe in the sense that time is a part of eternity so there is a sense that the nailed body and blood of Jesus are present at all times and in all places. But that requires no change in the bread and wine and implies Jesus is no more present in them than in anything else.
Paul believed in eternity. There is no time with God so Jesus is dying and rising before God right now. This sacrifice was present during the meetings when they ate and drank in remembrance of Jesus. This was why the bread they broke was a friendship in the body of Christ upon the cross.
Paul wrote that Christ, the Passover, has been sacrificed let us celebrate the feast (1 Corinthians 5:7, 8). The Jews sacrificed a Lamb at the feast of Passover and then ate it. Here, Paul says that Jesus is the Lamb. Does he mean that Jesus has been transubstantiated into a Lamb to feed us? No he means that the Passover Lamb is a symbol of Jesus. He says he has been sacrificed and that we are to celebrate this feast now. Perhaps he meant that we are to continue the Jewish feast of Passover. It is a mistake to argue that Christ being the Passover means he is the new Passover meal in the Lamb’s place and in the form of bread and wine. Paul could mean that Jesus is the Passover Lamb in the sense that he was sacrificed like the Lamb and at Passover but this need not suggest that the two are identical in all respects.
The Passover Lamb is still the Passover Lamb even if it is not served up on a platter say when the family have to flee all of a sudden.
It is a mistake to assume that the feast means meal. The verse does not refute our discovery that the risen Jesus in Paul’s thought had no flesh and blood to feed us with.
It is unlikely that Paul thought that Jesus would have materialised flesh and blood for the Eucharist when he said that Jesus was a spirit that gives life unlike the flesh and blood Adam.

The Roman Church tells us that the priest turns the bread and wine into Jesus Christ at Mass. We need to expose the proofs against the Catholic doctrine that Jesus is really present in the consecrated host and chalice used by the Bible-bashers that do not work. Bad proofs waste time and justify mistrust in the minds of our critics.
It is not enough to point to the biblical references to the consecrated elements as bread and wine as disproofs of transubstantiation for Rome has no problem with calling them that either. Perhaps it could be countered that Rome only does that because the Bible does and the Bible did it because they were just bread and wine. Jesus stressed that wine was wine by saying he would not drink it until he entered the kingdom after he called it his blood which is too emphatic and unnecessary a statement to be calling the blood wine in the sense that the Catholics do. You see, he could have said I will not drink this cup but instead he said, “I will not drink this fruit of the vine”, so he was trying to tell us something. So we have to be careful – also I would add that the strange emphasis that the bread and wine were just these indicate that the gospels were written in the second century when some like Justin Martyr seemed to say that the bread and wine became Jesus literally. The Catholics say the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist could be symbolically called bread and wine to remind us that they are food and drink for us. Rome’s Fourth Eucharistic Prayer calls the changed and consecrated species bread and wine. It is wrong to say that the bread and wine texts should be taken literally without first proving that the parts that seem to say they are flesh and blood are or at least could be figurative and it is certain they could be figurative.
At Bethany, a woman poured perfume over Jesus’ feet. The people there complained that it should have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus said that the poor would always be around but that he would not (John 12:8). This fails to refute transubstantiation because we all say we will be gone some day even if we believe that we will be spirits hovering over the earth after death. Jesus did not mean that he would be literally completely gone for he promised to dwell with his people forever. He would be visibly gone.
Some object that his body would be gone for he said that the woman was right to honour it for it would not be around much longer. He could have meant that his body would not be around in the sense that it could be anointed not ruling out the notion that it would be around in the form of bread in which state it cannot be anointed for whatever happens to this form does not happen to his body.
It is claimed that the words of Christ at the last supper after he said the bread and wine were his body and blood, “Do this in memory of me”, disprove the Real Presence dogma for you cannot commemorate what you have in front of you. You can if you can’t see it. Memorial services are held to remember the dead and their spirits may be present.
The Bible says that Jesus ate what he said as his body at the Last Supper. This does not refute transubstantiation for there would be no harm or folly in Christ eating himself. He might have done this to express unity with the others. The objection that when Jesus blessed the first Eucharist he didn’t disappear to become what were formerly bread and wine is no good for Rome says that the substance of Christ becomes present in the elements. Substance in their view is not like the things that appear to the sense but something like spirit that has no parts and makes a thing what it is. It is like something behind veils that makes no difference to their appearance or existence whether they are there or not.
Arguing that transubstantiation cannot be true when the Bible says that Jesus’ body is in Heaven is a mistake (Hebrews 10:12). The doctrine says that Jesus is in Heaven but God by altering the law of space can make it possible for us to eat Jesus without him leaving Heaven. Science says there was no space before the Big Bang so space can be changed now. A space warp takes place in the Eucharist so that though the bread becomes Jesus it does not mean Jesus is literally on the altar, he’s still in Heaven.
Some argue that since the pagan cults practiced a form of transubstantiation that the Catholic doctrine must be of the Devil and wrong. This is appalling logic. Pagans drink wine. Does that mean it is wrong for us to drink it or that Catholics should not use it in communion?
Some argue that transubstantiation cannot be true when the term was not employed in the Bible or the Early Church. But that does not matter. You can believe in God without having the word God. So as long as the early Church believed that there was no bread and wine left on the altar for Jesus was there now that would suffice.
The Mass is not part of the Christian faith. It is against it for the scriptures Jesus established said so. The Bible forbids anything that it does not teach so the Mass is against the Bible. It must have had a pagan origin.

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Book 2, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill & Son, Dublin, 1954
Apologetics for the Pulpit, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd, London, 1950
Born-Again Catholics and the Mass, William C Standridge Independent Faith Mission, North Carolina, 1980
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
Christian Order Vol 36 8-9 and Christian Order Vol 36 Number 4 53 Penerley Road, Catford, London 1995
Confession of a Roman Catholic, Paul Whitcomb, TAN, Illinois, 1985
Critiques of God, Edited by Peter A Angeles (Religion and Reason Section), Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979
Encyclopedia of Theology, Edited by Karl Rahner, Burns and Oates, London, 1977
Eucharist, Centre of Christian Life, Rod Kissinger SJ, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1970
Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Fr Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications, Chino, 1985
Is Jesus Really Present in the Eucharist? Michael Evans, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1986
Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Vol 2, Karl Von Hase MD, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
Hard Sayings, FF Bruce, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1983
Living in Christ, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne, 1969
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999
Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
Roman Catholic Claims, Charles Gore, MA, Longmans, Green & Co, London, 1894
Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism, William Webster, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1990
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zaccello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas, Dublin, 1995
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Mass, Sacrifice and Sacrament, William F Dunphy, CSSR, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1986
The Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments, Rev John A Gregg, APCK, Dublin, 1928
The Student’s Catholic Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Bob and Penny Lord, Journeys of Faith, California, 1986
Why Does God…? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls, Bucks, 1970
The Web
Transubstantiation, Is it a True Doctrine?
The Amplified Bible