Transubstantiation

when considering this topic, I believe this background music fits best...

1376 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." (Roman Catholic Catechism)


Now there are myriads of Romanist doctrines and practices that absolutely aggravate me and vex my soul, but "transubstantiation" is one concept that I find more hilarious than aggravating. Yes friends, Romanists actually believe that, by the power of their god, the old priest transforms the little wafers used for communion into the actual flesh of Christ, and the wine into the actual, literal blood of Christ (ick... I know). Now I know what some of you are thinking:

-Uh... Rand, surely people can tell that the wafer doesn't look, feel, smell or taste like flesh!?!

Of course they can, but you see, like all dumb-dumb, ridiculous false religious practices, there is always a way around the Truth. I have heard some priests say that the wafer and wine, while having been transubstantiated, still maintain their taste/feel/smell and look.

Now let's pause here a second. IS THAT SERIOUSLY STUPID OR WHAT? All their senses clearly indicates that what they are eating is some weird, manufactured bread, and yet, the Romanist must reject the obvious to basically take the Council of Trent's word for it. What a hard time the Romanist god gives his priests! I mean think about it:

"Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:7-10)

There was absolutely no mistake being made here! The Lord "transubstantiated" the water into wine and EVERYONE COULD TELL! So if the Romanist priest has this supposed God-given power to transform bread and wine into flesh and blood, why is it that no one can tell it happened?

So where does this insanity come from? How did Romanism come to accept such a bizarre concept? By misinterpreting the Scriptures. You see, Romanists are hard pressed to do anything right when it comes to godliness. Too often they totally disregard the teachings of Scripture, and then the few times they actually turn to the Bible, they mess up (either by ignorance, or by reading what they want into the Word) what the passage is saying.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

And there's the passage Romanists mess up; they take the above statement of the Lord Jesus Christ LITERALLY. The problem is, of course, the Gospel accounts and the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 make it quite clear that the above passage is to be interpreted figuratively.

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20)

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:25-26)

Tell me, is the cup LITERALLY the New Testament? Or was the Lord just using a figure of speech? DON'T BE STUPID. The same way "the cup" is a similitude for the wine that it contains, the wine IS A SIMILITUDE of the blood; and by extention, the bread IS A SIMILITUDE of the body. There is nothing LITERAL here. And then, consider these:

"For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." (Luke 22:18)

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." (1 Corinthians 11:27-28)

Wait a minute! Wait just a minute here! All you Romanists who believe in "transubstantiation", you all better get in touch with your priests/bishops/archbishops: there is corrections to be done in your Bibles. For you see, it would seem, by the verses above that the Lord Jesus Christ "forgot" that it wasn't "the fruit of the vine" he was drinking with His apostles, it was His blood. And then, Paul also seems to have forgotten that it is not bread that men could eat unworthily, it was the actual "flesh of Christ".

What nonsense!

And yet, the concept of the Lord's Table really isn't that complicated. The Lord Himself tells us that it is to be a remembrance of His Person; it's NOT a RE-ENACTMENT, it's a MEMORIAL. Christ wasn't teaching some weird form of cannibalism, he was giving his disciples (and us through the transmission of the Scriptures) two visual objects by which they/we may remember the work of the Cross (and a quick note here, these are the only two objects Christians should use in their worship of the God of the Bible... no statues, no jewelry, no candles... the cup and the unleavened bread + nothing).

In conclusion, let me emphatically repeat: DON'T BE STUPID. If it looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread, and tastes like bread... IT'S BREAD! The heresy of "transubstantiation" is just that... HERESY. And while I find it ridiculous and laughable, I know that way too many souls actually buy the nonsense.

Say "no" to the folly of Romanism, say "yes" to the plain and honest teachings of the Bible.


Rand

Labels: Romanism