GEORGE L. FAULL
The Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of transubstantiation. What is such a teaching?
It is best described by those who teach it. We will quote a few of the canons of the Council of Trent, the 13th session.
Canon 1-4, 6
“(1.) Whosoever shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire; but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power; let him be accursed.
“(2.) Whosoever shall affirm that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of the bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and peculiar conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, the species only of bread and wine remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fitly terms “transubstantiation’; let him be accursed.
“(3.) Whosoever shall deny that Christ entire is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, under each species and under every part of each species when they are separated; let him be accursed.
“(4.) Whosoever shall affirm that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the admirable Eucharist, as soon as the consecration is performed, but only as it is used and received, and neither before nor after; and that the true body of our Lord does not remain in the hosts or consecrated morsels which are reserved or left after communion; let him be accursed.
“(6.) Whosoever shall affirm that Christ, the only begotten son of God, is not to be adored in the holy Eucharist with the external signs of that worship which is due to God; and therefore that the Eucharist is not to be honored with extraordinary festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rites and customs of holy Church, nor publicly presented to the people for their adoration; and that those who worship the same are idolaters; let him be accursed.”
If one doubts this is their teaching, consult a recent Catechism and read it for yourself.
To sum it up, once the words of consecration are uttered by the Priest from that point on, there is no bread or wine left on the table. It is now Christ’s body and blood. This is the same flesh that was born of a virgin and that was crucified and is the same
body of Him who sits on the right hand of God. If the wafer is not all eaten, it is taught to still be His own flesh and blood.
Are the following words “This is my body, this is my blood,” to be taken as literal or should they be taken as figurative language? If it is to be taken literal, then every word should be literal.
The disciples saw it as bread and the fruit of the vine but He says, “it is his body and blood”. If they knew it was bread and the fruit of the vine and He said these words, then they had to suppose it was changed into His body and blood and was no longer bread but His body. Yet, He was standing there saying, “This is my blood, which is shed many for the remission of sins.”
Which is literal?
He did not put it in the future, “this will be My body and blood which will be shed” but “this is My body and blood which is shed.” If this is literal, then how can this be? Since Calvary had not occurred, “this is My body which is shed,” cannot be literal.
Obviously He was standing there. When they ate of it there was none of Him missing. Remember they insist that it is literal. It is Him. They are eating His body and drinking His blood. If this is literal speech, they are literally eating His body and drinking His blood! If the bread and cup was changed to His actual body and blood, this is cannibalism! They would be doing what they had been forbidden to do all their life. They were drinking blood, which the Law of Moses forbade them to do. He wasn’t dead yet so they were eating Him alive!
We cannot put it in the future for they say they are taking His words literal and it is not in the future tense but the present tense.
Also, how can it be taken literal for what they are eating is not identical to His body? It appeared to be as bread and juice, not flesh and blood. The color, shape, taste, substance has not changed. Is it then literally changed? When Moses’ rod was changed to a serpent, did it still look like a rod? No.
It certainly is not literal in the areas of sight, taste, smell and feeling. He is standing there so they could see the difference between it and His flesh. They could see none of Him was devoured; so how are we to understand it to be literal?
Has there ever been a more ludicrous and blasphemous teaching than this? This doctrine does not require faith to believe, but rather gullibility.
When Jesus changed the water into wine, it no longer looked like water but rather like wine. The Governor never even knew a miracle occurred. The Apostles would have had to disobey God to have obeyed Christ. “Take eat!” “Drink blood!” This is cannibalism! Who but the beguiled could believe it?
However, if the bread and cup were but symbols of His body and blood, it is a simple but beautiful ordinance. “This is” or “this represents” is common language we use every day. We show a picture and say, “this is my Son” or look at a drawing and say, “this is the Chicago Skyline”. In ancient days, this idiom was heard when Joseph said to the butler, “the three branches are three days”. To the baker he said, “the three baskets are three days”. To Pharaoh he said, “the seven cattle are seven years and the seven good ears are seven years.” Daniel says, “the ten horns are ten Kings”. Paul says, “the rock was Christ”. John says, “the seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches.”
The idiom appears all through the Word of God when one thing represents or is a symbol of another. In fact, the words “represents”, “signifies”, “symbolizes” or “symbol” does not even appear in the King James Version Bible. The concept is expressed with the phrase, “this is” or “these are.”
Think of the parables. When did Jesus ever say something symbolizes or represents another? He said, “the seed is the Word of God.” “The reapers are the angels.” “The thorns are the cares of this world.” So all this foolishness about Jesus not saying it represents or symbolizes His body and blood is mere foolishness and ignores a clear idiom of their speech.
Maybe this poem will illustrate it better:
A ROMAN MIRACLE
A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed;
To love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she’s been bred.
It sorely grieved her husband’s heart that she would not comply,
And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.
So by the day he flattered her, but still she saw no good
Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.
The Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;
And transubstantiation too, she’d never dare believe.
He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale,
“My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail.”
For all your Romish miracles, my wife has strong aversion,
To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion.
The priest went with the gentleman, he thought to gain a prize.
He said, “I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes.”
So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,
“The priest has come to dine with us!”
“He’s welcome,” she replied.
And when, at last, the meal was o’er, the priest at once began,
To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;
The greatness of our Saviour’s love, which believers can’t deny,
To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.
“I’ll return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;
The sacramental miracle will stop your soul’s decline.”
“I’ll bake the bread,” the lady said, “You may,” he did reply,
“And when you’ve seen this miracle, convinced you’ll be, say I.”
The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless,
The lady asked, “Sir, is it changed?” The priest he answered, “Yes.
It’s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;
Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!”
So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare,
The lady said unto the priest, “I warn you to take care,
For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,
But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter.”
The priest was struck real dumb, he looked as pale as death.
The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath.
“Bring me my horse!” the priest cried, “This is a cursed home!”
The lady replied, “Begone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome.”
The husband, too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say.
At length he spoke, “My dear,” said he, “the priest has ran away;
To gulp such mummery and tripe, I’m not for sure quite able;
I’ll go with you and renounce this Roman Catholic fable!
The Catholic Church accepts what the Council of Trent says about the mass being a sacrifice of Christ. They say, “This sacrifice is identical with the sacrifice of the cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is Priest and victim in both: the only difference lies in the manner of offering, which is bloody on the cross and bloodless upon our altars.”
This contradicts Jesus’ saying, “Do this in remembrance of me”, not “do this as a sacrifice of me.” It ignores that the Hebrew writer demonstrates the superiority of Christianity to Judaism in that He was sacrificed once for all and needed not daily be offered up. Hebrews 9:28; 10:2, 10-12, 14. This makes Jesus’ sacrifice no better than that of bulls or goats.
The little round wafer is called “the host” which means “the sacrifice or the victim.” This is so blasphemous in that when He made this sacrifice, He said, “it is finished.” John 19:30 He dies no more.
How blasphemous to worship a piece of bread. It is idolatry of the worst sort. They worship matter. As a remembrance, the supper shows forth His death until He comes. It is not a re-crucifixion of Him or a re-sacrifice of Him. We eat His memorial to commemorate His death and what He has done for us. We do not eat our God for if we eat Him, we excrete Him. If we eat Him, we can vomit Him. (They even insist that if it is vomited since it is Christ, it be buried or burned.) Christ re-buried! Will He rise again or stay buried? Christ burned! If we drink His blood, how can it make men drunken (as many priests have become.)? If it is His body, rats and other vermin can eat it. But this is enough. If these thoughts do not show the absurdity of the doctrine, the reader must remain in his superstition.