BREAD AND WINE TURNING INTO JESUS? TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS ANTI-BIBLICAL
Catholics hold that during Mass bread and wine are bread and wine no more but the body and blood of Jesus.
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, it is 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!
ACTS 15
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
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?
1 CORINTHIANS 10
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.
THE LAST WORD
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.
Cannibalism whether real or symbolic is still evil. Child abuse of a
doll is still showing what darkness you have inside. Jesus' rite was a
disgrace. The Church links it and his death for sins with the animal
sacrifices that God commanded. They have the same meaning - life belongs
to God and atones for sin. All these things are evils. The Mass is
declared to be the New Sacrifice which was prepared for by God with the killing
of animals at the altar. Thus the Mass is an insult to animal rights.
BOOKS CONSULTED
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?
http://www.geocities.com/christian_apologist2001/
MOST BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible
