The Council of Trent, in Canon 1 of the Eucharist section, states:
"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
The Catholic doctrine of the "Real Presence" is central to their worship and liturgy, and indeed their religion as a whole, so much so that they proclaim in an immutable conciliar canon damnation (anathema) on anyone who disagrees. I would like to explore this dogma in the light of scripture and reason.
Catechism #1376 further informs us:
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
Real presence and subsequently transubstantiation depend on a literal interpretation of several passages which, when truly considered exegetically, cannot possibly be so taken. We find here a doctrine in search of proof, rather than one based in it.
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives two main "proofs from scripture": John 6:26 sqq. and I Cor. 11:23 sqq.
First, John 6:26-59(NASB):
26 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."
28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." 30 So they said to Him, "What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, `HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.' " 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." 34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread." 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." 41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." 42 They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, `I have come down out of heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets, `AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 "I am the bread of life. 49 "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
The inconsistency of the Catholic interpretation here is well illustrated in the Catholic Encyclopedia's commentary on this passage:
Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John, vi, 52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible...
So Catholicism arbitrarily decides when and where Jesus is speaking figuratively, seemingly when it is convenient or required in order to support their own doctrines. The Catholic Encyclopedia says an allegorical interpretation of verses 52-72 is "impossible". If it's impossible according to their preconceptions, that's called eisegesis and is obviously not a valid argument.
Why must we force an artificial change to literal interpretation halfway through the passage? Nothing in the text mandates such a change. Furthermore, the Bible tells us Jesus always spoke to the multitudes in parables and figurative language. Consider Matthew 13:33-34:
34 All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable.
35 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
"I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES;
I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."
This concept is further reinforced in John 10:6 and Matthew 13. Jesus consistently and exclusively used allegory to convey truths when addressing a crowd/multitude. That concept must be the backdrop to interpreting His public teaching. Thus not only is there no cause to interpret His words here in a literal sense, but we are forced to consider them figuratively, since Jesus is speaking publicly to a crowd.
The inconsistency is further exposed when considering the Catholic interpretation of verses like John 8:12, John 9:5, John 10:7, John 10:11, and John 15:1. Jesus says He is a light, a door, a shepherd, and a vine. Of course Jesus is not really any of those things. Why make an exception with the bread and wine reference?
The second "proof" text, 1 Cor. 11:23-34(NASB) says:
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
Jesus is quoted speaking figuratively again, and again we have no textual-linguistic reason to think otherwise. To the contrary, language such as "in remembrance" is a strong indicator of figurative intent. Remembrance is not conducted with the one remembered being physically present! And of course said remembrance is not actually occurring as Jesus said these things, rather He was demonstrating a model to His followers, to be practiced in His absence.
Another important thing to remember is that Jesus ascended into heaven and is physically present at the right hand of the Father, having COMPLETED His work of Atonement.
Luke 22:69 (NASB):
"But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD."
Romans 8:34 (NASB):
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
(Eph 1:20, Col 3:1, Heb 1:3, Heb 8:1, Heb 12:2, 1Pet 3:22, et al, all say the same thing)
Hebrews 10:12 (NASB) explains the singularity and finality of the Atonement (could it possibly be said any more clearly???):
but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
Acts 2:30-35 (NASB) gives us a timeframe for this physical presence in heaven:
30 "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: `THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, 35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."
Yes, he is spiritually omnipresent, but the Catholic "Real Presence" view is centered and insistent on a physical presence. But Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will be until the last days ("UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET"). It is completely irrational and unscriptural that Jesus would bodily abandon His heavenly throne before the appointed time and that His physical body could be "wholly" incorporated simultaneously into thousands of different wafers and cups around the world on a daily basis. This is to violate the true nature of the Incarnation, whereby Jesus is both wholly God and wholly Man. He has a physical, real body, and physical real bodies may only be in one place at one time!
There is no debate that communion is a serious matter, and is not to be taken lightly. Though its gravity, and our passion thereof, must not incite an over-active, inaccurate interpretation. We must be bound by obedience to Truth and cannot let our own preconceptions color our interpretation of the Word! To hold to the doctrine of the "Real Presence" is to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the Word of God, forsaking It for the "wisdom" of men! And unfortunately for those who do so, it is before Jesus that we must make an account, not men. The Magisterium will be held accountable for their part in spreading false teaching, but only we are responsible for believing it or not.
Scripture supports a figurative interpretation of the Eucharistic celebration, consistent with the evangelical "remembrance" view, rather than the Catholic sacramental system. One can only be skeptical of a teaching, so central to the Catholic religion, which is based almost solely on a select few "proof" verses which may only be taken as support if they are interpreted with a forced literal hermeneutic! This is not consistent with legitimate scholarship or the sound Biblical doctrine of the FINISHED Work of Christ.
Like Evangelicals, Catholics do not take Jesus' words, “This is my body...this is my blood” in a strictly literal sense, for they do not really believe that the bread is Jesus’ body or that the wine is Jesus’ blood. The literal meaning – “This bread is my body; this wine is my blood” -- is a contradiction in terms. Bread is bread, not a human body; wine is wine, not blood. To explain away the obvious empirical facts, clever Catholic theologians have come up with this idea of transubstantiation: What appears to be bread is not bread at all, and though it has all the characteristics of bread, it is in reality (or in substance) the body of Christ! Although this is usually considered a literal interpretation, it is strictly speaking not so.
It is a great misconception that the words of Christ, “This is my body...this is my blood,” prove the doctrine of transubstantiation, for these words are more naturally understood “This bread represents my body...this wine represents my blood,” rather than “This apparent bread is my substantial body...this apparent wine is my substantial blood.”
THIS IS
The verb “is” is often used with a plain literal meaning. I can point to my car and say, “This is my car.” Nothing could be simpler than that. Yet the same verb is also used in a figurative sense. Pointing to the small dot on the map in the middle of the Mediterranean, I can tell you, “This is Malta, my country.” By that I mean, “This represents Malta, my country,” for Malta is not a little dot on a piece of paper. Or at the dinner table: To explain how I hit an old lady while driving to work, I may take a glass in one hand and the saltshaker in the other, and tell you, “This is my car, and this is the old woman.” That kind of speech is sensible only when we understand “This is” as “This represents.”
Take a biblical example of the symbolic meaning of the verb “to be:”
“He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels” (Matthew 13:37-39).
To explain the parable, Jesus repeatedly uses “is” and “are” to mean “represents” or “symbolizes” or “corresponds to.” The sower is the Son of man, meaning of course, that the sower represents the Son of man. The field is the world, that is, the field symbolizes the world, and so on.
Take another biblical example. In a narrative in the book of Samuel, three brave men put their lives at risk to bring fresh water for their master, David, from a well on the side of the Philistines. But when David found out about this, he would not drink it. He said, “Far be it from me, O LORD, that I should do this! Is this not the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” (2 Samuel 23:17).
Is not this the blood of the men? He called the water in the vessel “blood,” not because it was transubstantiated, but simply because it represented the danger to the lives of those three men who brought it.
So, we agree that (in the right context) “this is” could mean “this represents.” Now, I would like to show that there is ample contextual evidence that the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus’ body and blood:
SACRED SIGNS
1. The purpose of the Eucharist is a remembrance, a memorial, of Christ. After His bodily ascension into heaven, Christ is physically absent from His disciples on earth for many centuries until His second coming. So at the last supper with His disciples, He gave us a memorial that is both simple and profound in its significance:
When He had given thanks, He broke [the bread] and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:24, 25).
Just as the Passover meal was a reminder of God's deliverance of His people from the slavery in Egypt, even so in the Lord's Supper shows the story of our redemption from the slavery of sin by the sacrifice of Christ. Bread and wine are appropriate symbols to remind us of His crucified body and the blood shed on Calvary.
2. When Jesus said, “This is my body,” He was physically present with the disciples. They could see, hear and touch him. John was actually leaning on His bosom. So when Jesus took bread and said, “This is my body,” it was only natural for the apostles to understand that the bread was the symbol rather than His actual body. The tangible proof that the bread did not become Jesus’ body, is the bodily, physical, substantial and material presence of the man Jesus Christ standing with the apostles.
Similarly, when He said, “This is my blood,” Jesus specified which blood He was referring to, adding “…which is shed for you.” What was shed for us? The wine in the cup? Or the blood in Jesus' veins? Well then, since the wine was never shed, it must be representing the blood that was shed on the cross!
3. It is impossible to consistently interpret Jesus words literally. We have four slightly different accounts of Jesus' words relating to the cup and blood:
- “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
- “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24).
- “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).
- “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25).
The meanings of the four accounts correspond to each other. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul are essentially saying the same thing using different words. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to take “This is my blood” (in Matthew and Mark) either literally or figuratively. But could we say the same for Luke and Paul? Definitely not! “This cup is the new covenant.” The literal interpretation is absurd and meaningless -- certainly the cup is not literally the new testament! The wine is not transubstantiated into the new testament. The cup (or rather the wine in the cup) represents the new covenant ratified by the blood of Jesus on the cross. The Holy Spirit who inspired these words employed a phraseology that simply cannot be understood literally. We are forced to acknowledge that the cup is the sign of the new testament in Christ's blood and not literally the testament or the blood. Now, comparing Luke and Paul with Matthew and Mark, we can easily determine whether the latter two should be understood literally or figuratively. To be consistent with the other two authors, we must opt for the symbolic meaning. The wine represents the shed blood of Jesus. Moreover, since “This is my body” is parallel to “This is my blood,” it must also be understood figuratively. This bread represents Jesus’ body.
CONCLUSION
We have seen that “This is” could mean “This represents.” So at least one should acknowledge that “This is my body...this is my blood” could mean “This represents my body and blood.” Given Jesus' bodily presence with the apostles when He uttered those words, and His explanation that the eating and drinking is a memorial of Him, it is highly likely that He made the bread and wine symbols of His body and blood. Finally, we have seen that Jesus' words about the cup cannot be understood literally in the writings of Luke and Paul, and it would be contradictory to give them a literal meaning with the other two authors.
Maybe up to now you have never tried to understand Jesus' words symbolically. Please do. Pray, asking God to give you understanding, and while you read carefully the relevant passages in the synoptic gospels and First Corinthians, ask yourself, “Must I understand this to mean transubstantiation? Could it mean instead that the bread and wine are sacred signs of the body and blood of Christ?”