Transubstantiation
or the doctrine of
Sanctified Cannibalism
A. A Late Invention of Rome
The
term “transubstantiation” is no older than the 12th century
according to Catholics themselves:
“THE word Transubstantiation is so
far from being found either in the Sacred Records, or in the Monuments of the
Ancient Fathers, that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it
was no so much as heard of before the twelfth century.” – John Cousin –
Bishop of Durham
Monsignor Philip Hughes is universally
regarded as the foremost historian of the Catholic Church and he says the
term “transubstantiation” was first used in the fourth General Council of the
Lateran in 1215 AD.
“In
this creed’s exposition of the Holy Eucharist there occurs the first
official use of the word henceforth famous, when the creed states that the
bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ.
Only Priests duly ordained can bring this about.” – Philip Huges, The Church
in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870. p. 215
The actual wording found in this creed’s
exposition is as follows:
There is indeed one universal
church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus
Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in
the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and
wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and
blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God
what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who
has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ
himself gave to the apostles and their successors.” Introduction
of fourth General Council of the Lateran.
Prior to the Lateran Council there was no
official doctrine of transubstantiation. Catholics were divided on this issue
and the only unity between them was that they agreed that the presence of Christ
was somehow found in the Eucharist.
Later, the Council of Trent went so far as
to insist that every part of the body of Christ is partaken of in the supper
(head, hands, feet, sinew, bones, etc.).
Catholics believe they are actually eating
the literal body and blood of Christ. Such cannibalism requires serious
examination. Catholicism insists it is scriptural, citing the words of Jesus in
John 6:
"Except ye eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh,
and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last
day." John 6:53-54
However, it should be obvious that Jesus
could not have meant this literally as He was literally standing before them
and for them to take it literally would have meant for them to physically eat
him at that very moment. The same is true when He instituted the Lord’s Supper.
He was physically present at that supper and therefore they could not have
possibly eaten his body or drank his blood without committing murder and cannibalism.
In both cases the only possible meaning is symbolic as the only possible way
they could have obeyed him without killing him and eating him was to understand
that such elements REPRESENTED Him.
B. Common Metaphorical Language in the Gospel
of John
John 6:53-54 is similar to many such texts found in the same book of John. For
example Jesus also said,
“….Jesus
stood up and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
He that believeth on me…” – Jn. 7:37,38
“Jesus
answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst
again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water
springing up into everlasting life.” – Jn. 4:13-14
“Your
fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which
cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat therefore and not die.” – Jn.
6:49-50
“I
am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved and shall go in and
out..” – Jn. 10:9
Jesus presents himself as food to eat, liquids
to drink, doors to walk through and a vine to be attached to. In all of these cases spiritual life is in
view and walking through such a “door” or being attached to such a “vine” and
eating “bread” and “body” or drinking
“water” and “blood” all are said to be necessary to have spiritual life. The
question to settle in each of these texts is whether or not Jesus intends the
listener to understand his words literally or spiritually?
How is one to walk through Him as a
“door”? How is one to be attached to him as a “vine”? How is one to drink of
Him as “water”? How is one to eat of Him as “bread”? How is one to eat and
drink of Him as “body” and “blood”?
Literally or spiritually?
In each context, Jesus explains HOW they
are to do these things. In each context He clearly shows that eating, drinking,
entering, etc. are all to be understood as analogies for coming to Him by faith
or believing in Him.
For example, the physical life of the
body is sustained by partaking food and drink through the mouth. Likewise, the
spiritual life of the soul is sustained by partaking of Christ through faith:
"... For the bread of God is
he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said
they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I
am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he
that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35
Notice that Christ has substituted
“cometh” in the place of “drinking” and “believeth” in the place of “eating” in the above verse. He plainly
shows how He wants to be understood. If you have missed this point, the Lord
goes on to further clarify:
"And this is the will of him
that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may
have everlasting life..." John 6:40
Again, Jesus points out that eternal life
comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples stumbled at eating
His body and drinking His blood, Jesus again explained quite clearly:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth;
the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are
spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
C. The Theme is Saving Faith
Beginning in John 6:29 the subject of
saving faith is being discussed as the topic until the close of the chapter.
This text introduces the subject of saving faith as the sovereign work of God.
However, those listening requested from him a “SIGN” to help them believe.
“They
said therefore unto him, What SIGN showest thou, that WE MAY SEE,
and BELIEVE thee? And what dost thou work. Our Fathers did eat manna in
the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” – Jn.
6:30-31
He tells them that saving faith is the work
of God but they insist that they are able to believe if only a sign was
provided. The rest of the chapter demonstrates that saving faith is the work of
God and no amount of “signs” or explanations will help them believe.
They furnish Jesus with the kind of sign
they would like to see. They refer to a Sign miracle like the manna that came
down out of heaven in the wilderness. Jesus immediately draws an analogy
between Himself and that manna (vv. 32-33). The analogy that He is drawing is
that just as the manna came down as a provision for physical life, He has come
down from heaven as a provision for spiritual life. Their bodies had partaken
of manna through the mouth, but their souls have to partake of Christ through
faith.
However, they fail to understand this
analogy. Instead, they thought that He meant that He was talking about literal
bread which must be eaten for eternal life.
“Then
said they unto him, Lord, evermore give
us this bread.”
How does Christ respond to their
literalistic understanding of His analogy?
And
Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH TO ME shall
never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst. But I said
unto you, That ye also have seen me, and BELIEVE not.” – Jn. 6:34-36
Christ plainly shows them the exact point
where they fail to understand His analogy.
He did not want them to understand that they were to literally “eat” Him
as the children of Israel ate the manna. Therefore, He substituted in the place
of “eat” the very words (“cometh to me”) that would give His analogy the
meaning He wanted them to understand. He wanted them to understand that when He
said they were to “eat” of Him that this meant they were to come in faith to
Him. Moreover, He additionally added the idea of thirst although no such thirst
occurred with the manna. He was laying the ground work to talk about “eating” and “drinking” as
analogies for “coming” and “believing” in Him. Therefore instead of saying
“drinketh” He provides the words (“believeth on me”) that He wanted them to
understand by the analogy of “drinking”.
Did those disciples grasp the clear
explanation Jesus gave them of His analogy? No! Why? Because their minds
already were busy struggling to understand His words from a LITERAL point of
view. They chose to understand His words in a literal sense rather than in the
spiritual sense He plainly tells them. Christ plainly tells them that “eating
and drinking” means “cometh to me and believeth upon me” whereas they choose to
interpret “eating and drinking” as oral consumption of bread.
Christ perceives they are in unbelief (v.
36) and so goes on to plainly tell them that the only ones who can come to Him
in faith are those given Him by His Father (vv. 37-40).
What was their response to this five
straight forward verses? They had not heard or understood a word as their minds
were still being occupied about what Christ meant about being the manna that
came down from heaven (vv. 41-42). Why were they still confused? Because they
still were busy thinking in strictly literal terms about His manna analogy.
What Jesus does next is to explain to
them what the Father must do to them before they will be able to understand His
words and come to Him by faith. Beginning in verse 43 and ending in verse 65
Jesus explains that their murmuring is proof that they are not of those whom
the Father draws to the Son. Notice that verse 65 is so worded as to draw a
conclusion to what He told them in verse 44:
“No man can come to me, except the
Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day (v.
44)……And he said, THEREFORE said I unto you that no man can come unto me,
except it were given unto him of my Father.” – Jn. 6:44,65
Between verse 44 and verse 65 He
demonstrates that saving faith is the work of God alone and that no amount of
signs or explanations will enable them to understand His words or come to Him
by faith. For example after having clearly stated that ability to come to
Christ by faith is the work of the Father (vv. 43-46), He once again introduces
the analogy of manna they had stumbled at. However, this time He is careful to
first plainly state how He wants them to undertand HOW they are to EAT of Him
as the bread from heaven in order to have eternal life:
“Verily,
verily, I say unto you, He that BELIEVETH on me hath everlasting life.”
After clearly stating HOW He wants them to
understand eating Him as the heavenly manna, he immediately connects this
explanation to the manna analogy:
“Verily,
verily, I say unto you, He that BELIEVETH on me hath everlasting life. I
AM THE BREAD OF LIFE. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are
dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may EAT
thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if
any man EAT of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Notice He tells them that it is BELIEVING
on Him that gains eternal life and immediately connects this to His analogy of
eating manna. It is then on the basis of connecting “believing” to “eating”
that He then goes on to identify the bread they must partake of by faith to be
His “flesh.” However, they failed to understand the connection Jesus made
between “believing” in Him for eternal life
and “eating” Him as manna. Hence, they again took His words very literal
and became even more confused about “HOW” they were to eat His flesh.
“The
Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying , HOW can this man give
us his flesh to eat?” – Jn. 6:52
The pivotal point is found in their word
“how.” “How they chose to understand His words were in a very literal physical
sense and that only confused them. Jesus had already stated plainly HOW He
wanted them to understand His words and yet they could not understand Him. The
more carefully He explained it to them the more confused they became. Why? Because the Father must draw, teach and
give understanding or else no amount of careful explanation will help them.
Therefore, Christ sees their unbelief and therefore bluntly tells them that if
they do not “eat” his body nor “drink” His blood they have no spiritual life in
them (vv. 53-57). Yet, in order for them to clearly understand what He means by
“eating” and drinking” He precedes (vv. 47-51) and follows this blunt statement
by the analogy of eating manna (v. 58). “How” did He interpret eating Him as
manna?
“And
Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life; he that COMETH to me shall never
hunger; and he that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst.” – Jn. 6:35
“Verily,
Verily, I say unto you, He that BELIEVETH on me hath eternal life. I am that
bread of life.” – Jn. 6:47-48
Do they understand His words? No! In fact,
now they are offended at Him. Why? Because they still attempt to interpret His
words in a literal sense only. They were offended because they (as Jews) knew
that the Law of God forbade the literal drinking of blood and eating of a
corpse. Such a command taken in the literal sense would cause them to violate
God’s law.
However, again Jesus responded by taking
them back to the analogy of manna coming down from Heaven and saying that as
the bread came down from heaven so did He (v. 62). They were to understand
eating and drinking of His body and blood in the same sense as eating Him as
manna. They were not to understand His
words in a literal PHYSICAL sense but rather in a spiritual sense:
“It
is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” – Jn. 6:63
Drinking Him as water, eating Him as bread,
abiding in Him as a vine, walking through Him as a door, eating and drinking of
Him, as a “body” and “blood” are analogies of the spiritual truth that their
soul must PARTAKE of Him through faith
in order to have eternal life. Indeed, in each of these contexts the idea of
believing is literally stated in order to help them come to that conclusion.
However, like the Roman Catholic Church they are blind to His plain
interpretation. Like Rome, His disciples choose to understand His words in a
literal sense in spite of the fact that He tells them to understand his words
in a spiritual sense!
After clearly telling them that His words
has spiritual significance (v. 63) He goes on to tell them again why they are
unable to understand His words and believe on Him (vv. 64-65). They were
without spiritual ability to understand and believe His words. The Father must
give them that ability to believe or else they cannot come and believe in Him.
On the other hand, in direct contrast to these unbelievers, His
true disciples understood the spiritual significance of His words. He asked
them if they too would go away from Him:
“Then
Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast THE WORDS OF
ETERNAL LIFE. And WE BELIEVE thou art that Christ, the Son of the
Living God.” – Jn. 6:68-69
Peter understood clearly the spiritual intent
of His words about eating and drinking of Him. Peter saw the clear analogy
between partaking of manna as food for the body through the mouth and partaking
of Christ as food for the soul through faith and therefore clearly told Him
what Christ wanted to hear “We BELIEVE that thou art the Christ the Son of
God.”
Why can’t the theologians of the Church
of Rome see this clear and simple analogy?
They cannot see it for the same reason that those disciples of Christ
could not see it. They choose to approach
these words in a literal instead of a spiritual sense. They choose to do so in
spite of Christ’s clear statements to the contrary:
“And
Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life; he that COMETH to me shall never
hunger; and he that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst.” – Jn. 6:35
“Verily,
Verily, I say unto you, He that BELIEVETH on me hath eternal life. I am that
bread of life.” – Jn. 6:47-48
“…the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” – Jn. 6:63
However, the real bottom line reason they
fail to understand His words is because the Father has not drawn them nor
taught them and therefore they are unable to understand His words.
Eating and drinking are common
metaphors used in the gospel of John and in the Old Testament (Isa. 55:1-2) for
the soul partaking of eternal life by faith in Christ.
D. Transubstantiation violates the Law of God
Only if the context is ignored can one
come to the conclusion that He is demanding a cannibalistic act in order to
have eternal life. Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In
fact, God forbids the practice:
"But flesh with the life
thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4
"... No soul of you shall
eat blood, neither shall
any stranger that sojourneth among you eat
blood."
Leviticus 17:12
Christ would never command His
followers to violate the Law of God. To draw the Roman Catholic conclusion of
this text is to pit scripture against scripture and openly violate the
commandments of God.
However, if His words are understood by
the immediate context to be “eating” and “drinking” in the sense of partaking
of Him BY FAITH then no violation of God’s Law occurs as God’s law only
condemns the actual physical drinking of blood. The immediate context that
precedes John 6:53-56 (Jn. 6:35,47) and which proceeds John 6:53-56 (Jn.
6:63-69) make it clear that eating and drinking are to be understood as “coming”
and “believing” in Him.
E. Transubstantiation Distorts the Person of Christ
and work of Christ
The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus
Christ is both divine and human and the two are not to be confused. You are not
to deify his human nature nor naturalize His divine nature. The Bible says that
“the man” Christ Jesus is in heaven. The Bible teaches that the glorified and
resurrected human body of Christ is no longer upon earth but is in heaven. In
order for millions of Catholics to eat the physical body and drink the physical
blood of Christ it would require that his human nature take on the divine
attribute of omnipresence. More than that it would require the human body of
Christ to physically expand to the point that it could literally feed
millions at the same time.
How can His literally physical body be
in heaven and yet have his literally physical body in sufficient portions to be
devoured by a billion Roman Catholics worldwide every mass? The doctrine is rationally
absurd and physically impossible for the human nature.
Moreover, the Bible says that after He
offered Himself as a sacrifice ONE time He sat down FOREVER never to offer
Himself as a sacrifice again:
“And
every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same
sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins
FOREVER, sat down…For by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified.” – Heb. 10:11-12,14
“Nor
yet that he should offer himself OFTEN, as the high priest, entereth
into the holy place every year with blood of others. For then must he OFTEN
have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now ONCE in the end of the
world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” – Heb.
9:25-26
The point that the writer of Hebews is
making is that Christ offered Himself up as a SACRIFICE only ONE time FOREVER
never to be offered up as a Sacrifice again. Rome offers up the literal body
and blood of Christ as a SACRIFICE repeatedly. On the cross Jesus said, “it is
finished.” However, Rome says it is never finished as they re-offer Christ as a
sacrifice every mass. Such repetition is a denial of the sufficiency of the one
sacrifice of Christ and thus a perversion of the gospel of Christ.
F. Transubstantiation preaches another gospel
Both Jesus, Peter and Paul are all united
in their claim that there is but ONE gospel and that one gospel is the same gospel preached in the Old Testament prior
to the church and its ordinances.
Jesus said long before Pentecost that there
are only two options; one is broad while the other is narrow and only the
narrow way leads to life eternal (Mt. 7:13-14). Jesus said that no man comes to
the Father but by Him (Jn. 14:6). Jesus said that all the prophets preached of
Him (Lk. 24:44-46).
Peter said there is no other name given
under heaven whereby men must be saved (Acts 4:12). He claimed that this same
gospel was preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43) for the remission of sins.
“To
him give all the prophets witness, that through his name
whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” – Acts
10:43
Paul said there is no other gospel but one
(Gal. 1:6-9) and all others are accursed. He claimed that the gospel preached
by Him was no different than the gospel preached by all the prophets in the Old
Testament (Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2).
“Having
therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to
small and great, saying NONE OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets
and Moses did say should come. That Christ should suffer, and that he should
be the first that should rise from the dead…” – Acts 26:22-23
It is this one gospel in all ages that is
the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth (Rom. 1:16-17).
New Testament writers make it clear that
all the Old Testament sacrifices were only types and figures of the coming
Christ and thus could never literally take away sins (Heb. 10:1-4). In the Old
Testament the literal remission of sins was accomplished by believing in gospel
of Christ (Acts 10:43). Isaiah 53 is a very clear presentation of the gospel of
Christ in the Old Testament.
The church and its ordinances did not
exist in the Old Testament but the gospel
did. Since, Christ, Peter, Paul and the writer of Hebrews all claim that
the New Testament gospel is the same gospel preached in the Old Testament, then
anyone who adds the church and its ordinances as means of salvation are
preaching another gospel and thus an ACCURSED GOSPEL.
Absolute proof that the gospel of the Old
Testament is the same gospel of the New Testament is the example of Abraham
provided by inspired writers.
Paul said the gospel was preached by God
unto Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8). Jesus said that Abraham by faith saw His day and
believed in Him (Jn. 8:56). Paul said that Abraham was justified BEFORE GOD by
faith without works (Rom. 4:1-6). James says that he was justified BEFORE MEN
by his works.
How could Abraham be the “father” of all
who believe in Christ by grace (Rom. 4:16) and how could all believers in the
gospel be children of Abraham (Gal. 3:6-7) unless all had one common gospel
they believed in?? How could Abraham be
the example of all who are justified before God by faith unless and except that
all are justified on the same basis, as was Abraham? Abraham is proof that
there has been only ONE WAY to God. Abraham is proof there has been only ONE
GOSPEL of salvation in all ages for all men.
The Roman Catholic Church perverts the
gospel of Christ by adding the church and its ordinances as essential for
salvation. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the church and
its ordinances did not exist in the Old Testament. It does not take a rocket
scientist to figure out that the gospel of the Old Testament could not include
them and therefore the gospel of the New Testament could not include them
without being a different gospel than that of the Old Testament. If Jesus,
Peter, Paul and the writer of Hebrews are correct in saying there has been and
is only one gospel for all ages then the Roman Catholic gospel is ANOTHER
gospel that is ACCURSED by God.
Conclusion
History does not support the Catholic dogma
of transubstantiation. The first mention is 1200 years after Christ. The Bible
does not support Transubstantiation. Eating and drinking are common metaphors
used in the book of John for partaking of Christ by faith. They are common
metaphors used in the Old Testament for coming to Christ by faith (Isa.
55:1-7). The context of John 6:53-57 contradicts the Roman Catholic conclusion
of these verses. The Roman Catholic interpretation follows the line of thinking
of those unbelievers that Jesus was rebuking in that chapter.
Moreover, this Roman Catholic dogma denies
reason and promotes heresies. The human body of Christ in heaven must be
deified from a localized physical substance to an omnipresent substance in
order for a billion Catholics to partake of all over the world. It must be
expanded into enough flesh and blood to feed a billion Catholics while at the
same instant still in tact up in heaven.
The re-offering of the sacrifice of
Christ in the mass plainly contradicts the scriptures that He was offered ONCE
FOREVER never to be offered as a sacrifice again.
The demand that eternal life comes by way
of the communion table instead of solely by grace through faith in the one
gospel of the person and work of Christ before and after Pentecost places the
Church at Rome under the anathema of Galatians 1:6-9. They preach ANOTHER
gospel than the gospel of Christ.
For all the above reasons the dogma of
transubstantiation is to be abhorred and condemned for what it is – the
doctrine of devils (I Tim. 4:1-5).