Expert: Marvin Howard - 8/14/2008

Question
Any explanatory comments about transsubstantiation would be appreciated.
WIKI Encyclopedia contains the following:  "When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[1] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[2] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body,"
I don't know if this is accurate.  Please advise.


Answer
Hi!

Don, you caught me on a weekend, when I have both church and college. I am sorry it has taken extra time to respond.

I know that you are correct on your conclusion. It is so silly and impossible I have never studied the process that leads to their reasoning. it just isn't worth it. Neither is it profitable in the refutation of the false doctrine. If the conclusion of any logical argument is wrong, then it matters not that the premise is wrong or from whence is came.

If the bread literally becomes His body, and the fruit of the vine literally becomes His blood, this is based on the statement of our Lord in Matthew 26:26-29 and parallel accounts. This context extends to a point after the instruction. Therefore, Jesus, still speaking, retained all of His literal body and blood. Since this is the case, it must have been figurative at the time the Lord made the command. What Scripture is there to say it becomes literal if the one incident where it is recorded is figurative? There are none.

Let's look at two of the other verses where catholicism calls God a liar by teaching this false doctrine.

Acts 15:20, 28-29, "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

The Holy Spirit commands to abstain from blood. Among all the Jewish practices being bound on the church from the Old Law, this (along with idolatry and fornication) is all that was authoritatively retained. I did not include strangulation, as it is part of the same thing; strangulation is prohibited solely because the blood remains. It has been this way since Cain shed the blood of Abel and God signified the importance of blood. If catholicism is correct, then Christians are commanded to abstain from something commanded by Christ.

Colossians 1:18, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

If the church is His body on earth now that He has returned to Heaven, and the bread is His body, then He has two bodies. (By the way, this same condition was true when the Supper was instituted.) Yet, the Bible says He has one. How absurd it is to say a head has two bodies. Likewise, how absurd is it to say that a body has two heads (the proposition advanced by saying the pope is the head of the church), but that is another topic. Inspiration used anthropomorphisms to describe Heavenly things. God could not have done so if the underlying principles did not match.

While we are on the topic of the Lord's Supper, I would like for some catholic to show me the word, "eucharist," in Scripture. There is no authority for it. I would also like to know where they think they see authority to partake on any day other than Sunday (Acts 20:7). Also, when the Bible tells everyone to drink of the cup (Matthew 26:27), and tells all disciples to divide it among themselves (Luke 22:17), what makes the apostate catholic religion think they are better or smarter than God that they will deny it to most of the people, letting only one partake?

Don, catholicism is a false and evil religion that left Christianity. The split began before 1st Corinthians 1:12, and was complete by the year 533. It is not Christian regardless of what they claim. One cannot be catholic and Christian at the same time. The same is true of protestantism, but the dates are different. That is why I am in this category; to criticize their false practices. I hope I was able to show you how un-Christian they are on this subject. If I can be of further help, just let me know.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard