THE DOCTRINE OF BREAD AND WINE TURNING INTO JESUS EVEN IF POSSIBLE DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE
The Roman Catholic Church says that God can turn bread and wine into his Son
Jesus. The result is that they are not bread and wine at all any more but Jesus.
This doctrine is called transubstantiation. It is sometimes called the Real
Presence. The Real Presence means Jesus's presence in its fullest sense body,
blood, soul and divinity.
God performs this change when the Catholic priest blesses bread and wine on the
altar at Mass.
The look, smell, weight, colour and taste do not change but the underlying
reality does. This gives rise to three miracles: One is the change of bread into
the body and the blood of Jesus. Two is how this is done without anything
physically changing. Three is that it is a miracle for bread and wine to
be alive. They become a living being. The multiplication of miracles
shows that there is something wildly superstitious and credulous about all that.
Protestants disagree with all that. For them there is still bread and wine.
Michael J Langford wrote, "It is worth insisting at this point that there is no
need for Roman Catholics and other Christians to be divided on this matter,
despite the controversy which has raged over 'transubstantiation' (the Roman
Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine become in substance the body and blood
of Christ). Recent studies have shown how much this old controversy is based on
misunderstanding. The thing to remember here is that the definition of the
doctrine is in Latin and there has been a tendency to use inappropriate English
words in the translation. Thus while the doctrine asserts that there is a change
in substance, it also asserts that the 'accidents' of sight, taste, touch, etc.,
are unchanged. In Modern English, it is precisely these things that signify the
physical nature of something, so that it would be more accurate to say that the
bread and wine were physically unchanged than to say that they were changed"
page 69, Unblind Faith, Michael J Langford, SCM Press, London, 1982). Is a
change that is not physical a change at all in relation to this doctrine? If
there is no physical change, it follows that we cannot hold that God is veiling
the true appearance of the body and blood from us by making us perceive them as
just the same. That would be an invisible physical change. In reality, the
Catholics are just pretending the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus
and using fancy terms to hide that.
The Catholic Church says that just as Jesus turned water into wine so he can
change bread into his body. Protestants agree. But the Catholic Church says he
can do it without making the bread seem to undergo any change. Protestants deny
that bit. The notion of the change is based on the idea that God made all things
out nothing for only then might God have the power to perform the change of
bread and wine into Jesus. But the Bible does not clearly teach that doctrine.
If Jesus did not turn water into wine, he could have used his power not to
transform the water but to replace it with wine. That would still be referred to
as changing it for in a sense it is. It is the rule that we interpret the Bible
by the Bible for if we don't we can make it mean anything we want. It is safe
then to conclude that there is no evidence in favour of the Catholic
understanding of the changed bread and wine in the Bible. It's heresy.
The Church decided to officially adopt the notion that substance and accidents
are not the same thing in 1215 Substance means what something is. Accidents are
its physical components. So the Church argued that the substance of bread and
wine can change into Jesus without any change being perceptible. When you touch
the bread you touch the appearance of bread not Jesus though the bread is Jesus.
The distinction between substance and accidents was first made by the Greek
philosopher Aristotle. But he never stated it was possible for say gold to be
actually a frog! Aristotle only meant that substance is the stuff we don't
detect in an object. For example, if you hold a pebble your senses only tell you
so much about it. You can't keep seeing what is underneath. Transubstantiation
say of a pebble into gold for Aristotle would have to mean say gold being
covered with the surface of a pebble and otherwise seeming to be a pebble and
weighing like it and all. The chemistry or stuff would change. Aristotle
rejected the notion that substance can change without the matter changing which
is supposed to happen at the Catholic Mass: "A substance is generated
(destroyed) by having matter take on (lose) form."
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/zeta17.htm
Given the rule of reason that no book should be interpreted in an unreasonable
way, it follows that if the Bible does say the bread is Jesus it means it
metaphorically. Catholics deny this. If the world at the time of Christ made a
difference between substance and accidents and imagined one changing without the
other changing and this teaching made sense it would be different. But it
didn't.
Even if substance and accidents are distinct they are not separate. Nor can they
be separated.
If substance causes the accidents then transubstantiation is untrue and
impossible.
If the substance may cause the accidents then transubstantiation may be untrue
and impossible. The doctrine then isn't much of an explanation. You don't solve
a mathematical mystery by suggesting that maybe 2 and 2 are not always 4. What
you do is destroy any right you have to claim to be offering an explanation.
What you are offering is nonsense wearing the explanation disguise.
Catholics are really pretending that a change of bread and wine into Jesus is
really a change. So they are consciously adoring bread and wine not Jesus
Christ. It is extreme idolatry and marks that faith as crude paganism despite all
the Christian accretions. If Christianity is the true faith then Roman
Catholicism is Satan, the great counterfeiter's, masterpiece. Their claim that
the bread and wine are Jesus Christ is just refusing to admit that no change has
taken place. They are like the Emperor, from The Emperor's New Clothes, who was
wearing nothing and still thought he had an invisible suit on.
If bread can look exactly the same after being turned into Jesus then clearly a
man can be turned into a piece of iron without the iron changing in appearances.
The Church says that Jesus doesn't disappear in Heaven. He is still there
looking like a man but is able to be in the bread at the same time. But God
could surely make him vanish if he wished. If he can turn bread into Jesus
without Jesus leaving Heaven then he can turn it into Jesus in such a way that
Jesus's body seems to have ceased to exist and so that the ex-bread is now the
only body of Jesus there is. God can make the iron no longer iron but the man
with the man disappearing as well. So what cannot be alive can be alive
according to the ridiculous Romish doctrine of the Mass. The doctrine of the
change into Jesus is so mad that nobody can believe in it in their minds. The
idolatry is conscious.
God can turn marble into a seeing eye with the accidents of the eye disappearing
but with the accidents of the marble remaining. So how could it be a seeing eye
anymore? It needs the accidents to see. Its substance was that of a seeing eye.
The change of the marble's substance into its substance turned the seeing eye
into something else, another substance. So it follows that it is just a marble
now. It follows that a marble cannot be turned into a seeing eye. If so, bread
and wine cannot become Jesus Christ.
The bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus but the accidents or the
appearances of bread and wine still exist but the ghostly intangible thing,
substance, that makes them bread and wine disappears and is replaced with what
makes Jesus Jesus. But the appearances of Jesus are not involved just the
substance of what makes Jesus Jesus. In other words, the wafer doesn't become
six feet tall like Jesus may be.
At this point we must ask what is the most important? The substance or the
accidents. It must be the accidents because if I am transubstantiated physically
into a door but retain my accidents it will be like nothing has changed. It will
feel the same for my mental processes can still run if the substance of my brain
is changed for there is no physical difference. The communion wafer shows no
difference after becoming Jesus so neither will I. I will see feel like me and
be me in a sense though I am a door! What if Jesus’ body has been
transubstantiated into the moon? If bread is transubstantiated into the result
then is communion Jesus or the moon or both? Transubstantiation is outrageously
ridiculous. The view that substance not accidents make something what it is, is
nonsense. Commonsense says that if all tests show something is cheese then it is
cheese.
Many believe that God cannot perform the miracle of transubstantiation for it is
like making a square circle. For example, if I have a circle and
transubstantiate it into a square then is it a square or a circle or both?
Christians deny that God can do what is logically impossible. Believers in God
assert that it is possible for him to make a stone out of nothing but he cannot
make a stone that is impossible for him to lift. They say that if God can do the
logically impossible he can do nonsense and he can program a person to do good
or force a person to be good and that person could still have free will!
Transubstantiation is allegedly related to the absurd doctrine of creation out
of nothing. The Catholics believe that once there was nothing but God commanded
it to become the universe and the angels and it did. The Church says God did not
make anything out of his power for that is not creation out of nothing. But if
that is true then the creation just popped out of nothing by itself and if God
was there then he still had nothing to do with it. The Catholics reason that if
God can make things out of nothing then he make bread become Jesus without the
bread physically changing. But creation is impossible. And even if it were
possible, it still does not mean that this change can be done. The change cannot
happen for creation cannot happen and even if it could that still has nothing to
do with making transubstantiation possible.
The Church says the big bang was when nothing exploded to become the universe.
This is contradictory for if there really was nothing then an explosion is
impossible. Something can explode. Nothing cannot for there is nothing there to
explode.
Transubstantiation is illogical. It is dangerous to say that God will do useless
or useful but unnecessary miracles for then you can be sure of nothing and not
know what to expect. Many people have not recognised Jesus in the form of bread
and wine so they have been deceived without need. The doctrine makes God
untrustworthy. He could be tricking you all the time. Your father could have
been transubstantiated into the front door last week if God does this miracle.
You just have no way of knowing what anything is.
The apostles taught that they could trust their senses, which ones physical or
non-physical it does not matter - for they said they saw and heard Jesus after
he came back from the dead. By implication, they opposed miracles that were just
arbitrary experiences of supernatural power and beyond the senses.
Take a piece of bread. Take a piece of meat. Take a piece of lead. What have
they in common? They are all matter. They are all material things. They are
different according to the tests of the senses. For example, they look
different. But they are just different forms of matter. Suppose substance is
what the Catholics say it is, a non-material thing. Then how do we know that we
don't just have the same substance, matter, manifesting as things that seem
different? Perhaps bread is a substance appearing as bread, and lead is the same
substance as that one? Perhaps bread, meat and lead are all the same substance
in different forms? Even bread can take many forms. So why not? Perhaps bread
and meat are just names for different kinds of lead? Perhaps there is no
difference as regards substance? If there isn't then it is nonsense to speak of
substances changing as in the Mass.
I am surer that I exist than I am of anything else. Therefore I cannot be as
sure that bread is really Jesus as I am that my friend is a person. So the
friend comes first and it is immoral of religion to ask me to revere a wafer or
any idol as my God or supreme being or supreme concern. If Jesus promised to do
this wonder then he was a fraudulent prophet. The Eucharist is evil. It reviles
human dignity and reason by setting itself over what my own individual reason
and perception tell me. It is not communion. It is the reversal of communion. It
is geared towards the implementation of artificial unity and equally artificial
reverence for human dignity.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that bread can be turned into Jesus without
any perceptible physical change taking place. It is no longer bread but Jesus.
This change takes place in the Mass by the power of the priest. The Church says
that what makes bread bread turns into whatever it is that makes Jesus Jesus. So
the taste and appearance and weight etc of the bread remain but whatever makes
it bread is turned into whatever it is that makes it Jesus. Whatever makes bread
bread and whatever makes Jesus Jesus is something non-physical or immaterial.
This is clearly turning Jesus into a spirit not a real body. Rome says Jesus can
exist as a man without having his eyes, ears, smell, sense of touch and taste.
The real Jesus, his substance, his nature, have nothing to do with these senses.
He cannot look at you from the communion wafer he turns into. This doctrine is
even more non-Christian than the notion that the antichrist heretics condemned
in John 1 had that Jesus had senses but was not a man but a ghostly being or was
a spirit with senses possessing a man.
Whatever Jesus meant when he said we must gnaw his flesh as food it certainly
was not anything like the Catholic doctrine which claims that bread turns into
Jesus' flesh but doesn't claim it in any meaningful sense or in a way that makes
any sense. An eye sees. If the eye disappears and is turned into a marble in the
way the Catholic Church says it can happen it is not an eye anymore. End of. And
if the eye is like Jesus and doesn't disappear but a marble is turned into it
there is no difference. What happened to the eye's power to see which was part
of itself? Gone. An eye is for seeing and a true eye can see. If it cannot see
anymore it is not an eye for a marble cannot see. The Jesus of Catholicism that
it worships in the form of the wafer is not Jesus. We all at least
subconsciously know that a marble which has been transubstantiated into an eye
is not an eye and it makes no sense to say it is. Catholic worship of the wafer
is really just worship of a wafer and on some level they know it.
John Henry Newman said he could accept that the bread and wine turn into Jesus
because nobody really understands matter or substance anyway. But as a
methodology, we have to call bread bread. And the fact that we may not
understand matter and substance that well means we have no chance of
understanding them if we start saying that bread is really a man. He was wrong
to reason as he did.
Folmar was a Catholic who insisted that the wine was just the blood of Jesus
and the bread was his flesh minus the blood and the bones! St Alphonsus alludes
to him in his History of Heresies. Folmar had a point - what else would
you expect when the Bible only speaks of Jesus' flesh and his blood?
I was once so keen to turn bread into God that I celebrated imitation services
of the Eucharist. Little did I know that even the real Mass had about as much
divine power! Even if transubstantiation is possible it never happens.