IS THE DOCTRINE OF
Is the doctrine of transubstantiation Biblical? First of all exactly what is the doctrine of “Transubstantiation”?
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a teaching of the Catholic church that states that during the sacrifice of the mass when the priest blesses or consecrates the bread and the wine at communion that the bread LITERALLY and in SUBSTANCE actually CHANGES into the body of FLESH of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and the wine LITERALLY and in SUBSTANCE actually changes into the BLOOD of Jesus.
The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation goes on to dogmatically state and demand that if a Catholic does NOT believe this teaching that they shall be “anathema”, which means CURSED by God and therefore this now non believing Catholic in the doctrine of Transubstantiation shall NOT inherit eternal life in the world to come. In other words, according to the dogma of the Catholic church, a Catholic MUST without fail believe in this doctrine of transubstantiation in order to receive eternal life in the world to come. A Catholic has no other option than to believe this doctrine of transubstantiation exactly the way the catholic church teaches or they are no longer considered to be a Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic church. To say this another way so Protestants can understand, this doctrine of transubstantiation is to Catholics what an ESSENTIAL doctrine to salvation is to Protestants. Here are the very words the the Catholic Church itself on their doctrine of transubstantiation.
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:
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” (Session XIII, chapter IV)
Now as well, there is also an abiding curse (anathema) placed upon all Christians who deny this doctrine by the authority of the Catholic church:
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. (Session XII, Canon I)
Also this word “transubstantiation” has very cleverly and some believe perhaps even deceitfully been chosen by the Catholic church, because it does NOT mean what most Catholics and non Catholics alike THINK that it means. I will explain what I mean by this further on in this study of God's word.
Now then I must warn you in advance that this is a rather long and in depth study in God's word. I have done a lot of research and there is some misinformation out there. In my research I found there to be lot of BIAS information on BOTH sides of this controversy. So as always I ask my readers and seekers of the truth to please read this study carefully and prayerfully and remember to consider the WHOLE matter BEFORE you draw any final conclusions.
So then, the purpose of this study in God's word of TRUTH is to answer the question “Is the doctrine of Transubstantiation a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching?” In other words, what does the Bible teach us? Does the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible teach us the same thing that this Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches?Is this Catholic teaching of the bread and wine at communion being actually CHANGED into the literal physical SUBSTANCE of the FLESH and BLOOD of Jesus when the priest blesses these elements of bread and wine in the offering of the sacrifice of the mass truly a sound Biblical teaching?
Now to answer this question “Is the doctrine of transubstantiation a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching?” we need to go to God's word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, and answer another related question, “Did Jesus himself miraculously change the SUBSTANCE of the bread and the wine into his literal body FLESH and BLOOD at the last supper with his disciples?”
And in order to answer this question with sound Biblical evidence we must first take a CLOSE look at the first miracle that Jesus did shortly before he actually began his public ministry to the Jews.
If you remember in the gospel of John chapter 2 we are told that Jesus and his disciples were invited or called to a marriage supper at Cana and while they were attending this marriage feast the quests ran out of wine so Mary the mother of Jesus said to her Son the guests have no wine and then Mary told the disciples to do whatever Jesus told them to do. Here is John 2:1- 11 for you to read for yourselves.
8. And he said unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. (Now you have to honestly wonder what was going on in the minds of the disciples of Jesus, who up to this point in time, had not yet witnessed any miracles done by the hand of Jesus. In other words, the disciples were most likely thinking in themselves something like, “You want us to do WHAT? You want us to serve this WATER to these important quests who are EXPECTING WINE? Are you crazy? Then they remembered Mary's words just DO whatever my Son tells you to DO, so they obeyed Jesus and served the WATER not KNOWING that the water would be CHANGED into WINE only milliseconds before the quests TASTED the WATER that filled their cups.)
9. When the ruler of the feast had TASTED the WATER that was MADE wine, and knew NOT whence it was (in other words, the quests did not KNOW that the wine had run out and that Mary had told her Son to do something we have no more wine to serve the quests. You see, the quests did NOT know that Jesus had his disciples fill some empty vessels with ordinary WATER and then had them draw out this WATER and serve it to them. That is to say, the quests were not EXPECTING to be served WATER, but rather they were EXPECTING to be served WINE, because it was WINE that they had been drinking thew whole time.): (but the servants which drew the WATER KNEW;) (in other words, the servants KNEW exactly that the quests where EXPECTING WINE and they also KNEW perfectly that they had filled the empty vessels with WATER and they also KNEW that it was WATER that they where serving to the quest who were expecting to TASTE WINE when the drank from the cup that the servants just filled with WATER. So you can imagine the worry going through the minds of the disciples of Jesus as to what the response of the guests might be when they drank the WATER that they had just given them when they expected WINE? The disciples might have thought something like, “What are they going to say and do when they drink this WATER when they are EXPECTING WINE? Why did I ever agree to do whatever Jesus asked me to do? These men are drunk maybe they won't notice? Or maybe they will become very angry and take their anger out upon me because I am the one who served them WATER when they expected to be served WINE?” Who knows what went on in the minds of the disciples when they were told to serve WATER to the quests when they knew that the guests were expecting WINE?) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, (“Oh no! Here it comes!” May have been running through the minds of the disciples. For you see, up to this point in time the disciples only KNEW that they filled the pots with WATER and that it was WATER and NOT wine that they were serving to the guests, who they also KNEW were EXPECTING to taste WINE and were definitely NOT expecting to taste WATER when they drank from their cup that the disciples just fill with WATER. You see, the Bible does not tell us that the servants were told by Jesus that he had changed the water into wine, but rather all we are specifically told is that Jesus ONLY instructed his disciple to fill the pots with WATER and then SERVE the WATER to the guests who they KNEW were EXPECTING to be served WINE. Remember they had not yet witnessed any miracles done by Jesus as yet. So you can image what a surprise and what a relief that this miracle of the WATER actually being CHANGED in SUBSTANCE into WINE was for the disciples of Jesus when they heard the words of the governor of the feast say how GOOD the WINE was! You see, this was the first MIRACLE that they had ever witnessed Jesus doing. And it was this very FIRST miracle that they witnessed which caused them to truly begin believing that Jesus was indeed the Christ, or the man that was called by Almighty God to be his ANOINTED one that was prophesied to come in the Scriptures. Here is what the governor of the feast proclaimed.)
11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.”
Now this first miracle of Jesus is KIND of or the TYPE and EXAMPLE of a true miracle of “TRANSUBSTANTIATION” as most Christians think and honestly believe that this word “transubstantiation means to them. I will explain what I mean by this further on in this study, but for now I want you to see that when Jesus does a MIRACLE it is a TRUE UNDENIABLE miracle where CLEAR visible evidence can be seen or felt with our physical senses in some way. You see, when Jesus did this first MIRACLE, Jesus LITERALLY and in SUBSTANCE actually CHANGED the physical or chemical structure of WATER into the actual and literal SUBSTANCE of WINE, and not just any wine, but GOOD WINE that would cause a NOTICEABLE REACTION by those who drank of this wine that was made from mere water. I mean when Almighty God does a miracle through his servants, then God does NOT do a half way miracle, but rather does a complete and very noticeable miracle that cannot be denied.
But HOW do we know this? How do we KNOW with absolute certainty that the water was actual CHANGED into WINE?
Well reason number one, or exhibit A of our SOUND BIBLICAL EVIDENCE is that we are clearly and plainly TOLD in the word of God with absolutely NO interpretation needed that the SUBSTANCE was indeed CHANGED from water into wine. Verse 11 says that this is the beginning of MIRACLES that Jesus did to manifest or to clearly show froth his glory.
And reason number two, or exhibit B of our SOUND BIBLICAL EVIDENCE from the word of TRUTH is that we can clearly see recorded in God's word the REACTION of those who partook or actually drank the water that without a doubt was CHANGED into the literal SUBSTANCE of WINE, because we see the REACTION of their raving over how GOOD the wine TASTED.
So then, with that being said let me ask the question again, “Did Jesus himself miraculously actually change the bread that he broke and gave to his disciples to eat into the LITERAL SUBSTANCE of his BODY of FLESH?” And “Did Jesus miraculously change the wine into the LITERAL SUBSTANCE of his BLOOD that he would not actually be shedding until the next morning for the atonement of the sins of the world?”
In other words, does the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, come right out and say to us with CLEAR, PLAIN, and SIMPLE words that leaves absolutely no doubt that when Jesus spoke the words “THIS IS MY BODY” that Jesus actually and MIRACULOUSLY changed that piece of broken bread in SUBSTANCE into his literal body of FLESH? Please keep in mind that the MIRACLES that Jesus did where CLEARLY SEEN to be TRUE miracles that could Not be denied.
So then, when the disciples partook and ate of bread that Jesus said was his BODY did they actually TASTE the raw FLESH of the human BODY of Jesus? And when Jesus said the words “THIS IS MY BLOOD that I shed for your sins” and he gave the cup of WINE to his disciples to DRINK did they actually TASTE the very BLOOD that Jesus had not yet at that moment in time actually shed for the remission of the sins of the world?
NO! Absolutely NOT! There is no such CLEAR, PLAIN, and SIMPLE language anywhere in the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, that leaves absolutely no doubt that Jesus without fail MEANT by his words, “THIS IS MY BODY take and EAT of it”, that Jesus was saying without a doubt to us that we would LITERALLY be eating the FLESH of his physical body and that we would LITERALLY be drinking his BLOOD, which again Jesus had NOT actually had shed at that point in time when he instructed his disciples to break bread and drink some wine in REMEMBRANCE of his DEATH on the cross that he would shortly suffer for the sins of the whole world.
So then, ask yourself these simple question, “Does Jesus the Son of the living God do HALF miracles?” and “Did Jesus just change the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine into the SUBSTANCE of his flesh and blood and leave the OUTER part of the bread and wine UNCHANGED as the Catholic doctrine teaches?”.
For you see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, this doctrine or this teaching of “transubstantiation” by the Catholic church is just and INTERPRETATION of what Jesus meant by his words, “This is my body...” and “This is my blood...” For you see. IF this CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION of these words of Jesus were indeed TRUE that Jesus performed a TRUE MIRACLE, then the disciples would have actually TASTED the raw uncooked FLESH of the human body of Jesus, and we as well would actually TASTE raw human FLESH each and every time we eat the BREAD of communion. And the disciples would have actually TASTED the LITERAL BLOOD of Jesus when they drank of the cup of WINE and we as well in the Protestant church would LITERALLY TASTE the shed BLOOD of Jesus when we drink the wine of communion.
Just THINK this through for yourselves my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, ask yourself the question WHAT did the quests at the marriage feast in Cana actually TASTE when Jesus MIRACULOUSLY CHANGED the WATER into WINE? I mean did those who drank the WATER that Jesus himself MIRACULOUSLY CHANGED into WINE actually and literally still TASTE like the WATER that it once was before Jesus performed this MIRACLE? Absolutely NOT, because when Almighty God the Father does a MIRACLE through the hands of his servants God does NOT do a HALF miracle like the so called “miracle of transubstantiation”.
So again WHAT did the quests at the wedding feast actually TASTE when the drank the water that Jesus MIRACULOUSLY CHANGED into WINE? That is right! They LITERALLY TASTED WINE and NOT WATER. So then, HONESTLY before Almighty God as your witness, what is it that you yourself ACTUALLY and TRULY TASTE when you eat the bread of communion? Do you TASTE the raw flesh of the human body of Jesus? Have you ever tasted raw human flesh? Personally I myself have not, and even the THOUGHT of eating human flesh sounds revolting to me.
OR in TRUTH before Almighty God do you truly and honestly TASTE a literal piece of BREAD? I can only speak for myself that when I was once a very devout Catholic I only tasted BREAD, and very dry bread at that, when I partook of communion.
Also when you as a Catholic priest drink the WINE of communion, do you actually and literally TASTE the human BLOOD of Jesus? Have you ever drank the BLOOD of a human or even the blood of an animal for that matter? Now many of us may have TASTED our own blood by licking a wound clean and I know some people like their meat cooked very rare, as in, almost raw where the blood can be tasted in the meat. But I can tell you that I myself have never drank the WINE of communion and actually TASTED BLOOD, nor have I ever DRANK blood either human nor animal. In fact the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible commands us to ABSTAIN from the consuming of BLOOD.
Please read Acts 15:28,29 where we see the early church in the New Testament first beginning to form universal doctrine for the whole body of believers.
29. That you ABSTAIN from meats offered to idols, and from BLOOD, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Fare you well.”
You see the in heathen pagan rituals that were around at that time the communicants drank the BLOOD of the sacrifices that were offered to their false gods. Please read Psalm 16:1-4 which is a prophecy of Jesus committing his trust to God saying that he will NOT DRINK the BLOOD that is offered other gods.
So then, most definitely the DRINKING of BLOOD that is offered to idols or false gods is strictly forbidden in the word of Almighty God. But what about the DRINKING of BLOOD that is offered to the one true and only Almighty God? Well it order to answer that question we need to ask was it forbidden to DRINK the BLOOD of the animals that were offered as sacrifices to God in the Old Testament? Now we do not read those specific words, it is forbidden to DRINK the blood of the animal sacrifices, but what we do find in the Old Testament is that neither the priests nor the people of Israel never DRANK the BLOOD of any sacrifice offered to Almighty God, nor did they even TASTE even one drop of BLOOD that was offered in sacrifice to the one true and only Almighty God. But rather the blood was collected very carefully in a vessel and then the blood was pour, rubbed or sprinkled upon the altar of sacrifice. The remaining blood was poured out at the base of the alter where the meat and the remaining blood was then burned and totally consumed with fire as a sacrifice to Almighty God.
Now ever student of the Bible knows that these Old Testament blood sacrifices were shadows and types of the coming once and for all time sacrifice of the only begotten Son of Almighty God for the atonement of the sins of the whole world. Therefore it stands to reason and conclude that we are NOT to drink the ACTUAL BLOOD of the sacrifice of Jesus either.
But WHY then did Jesus say in John 6:53-56 that his BLOOD must be DRANK in order for anyone to obtain eternal life in the world to come? Well did you ever think and HONESTLY and TRULY consider that Jesus may have been speaking FIGURATIVELY and NOT LITERALLY? We will address this question in greater detail further on in this study, but for now let us get back to the question at hand.
So WHY? Why is it that we as true believers, whether it be a Catholic priest or whether it be Protestants, do NOT TASTE BLOOD or the raw FLESH of the human body of Jesus when we partake of the wine and bread of communion IF SO BE that it is LITERALLY and MIRACULOUSLY CHANGED in SUBSTANCE into the FLESH and BLOOD of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ?
The simple and SOUND BIBLICAL answer is that the LITERALLY CHANGE of bread and wine into the body of flesh and the shed blood of Jesus is merely an INTERPRETATION of what SOME Christians have concluded by their own personal reasoning that these words of Jesus must without fail mean.
You see, some Christians, namely ONLY Catholics primarily but some strict Orthodox Christians as well, will dogmatically demand that Jesus did indeed CHANGE the bread and wine INTO the SUBSTANCE of his literal FLESH and BLOOD, but again I ask you WHERE is their SOUND BIBLICAL proof or EVIDENCE for such and INTERPRETATION?
The only answer that I personally have ever heard is that the Bible plainly states that Jesus said to his disciples as he gave them the bread to eat saying THIS IS MY BODY take it and eat. And when Jesus gave them the cup of wine to drink he plainly stated drink for THIS IS MY BLOOD. Therefore the Catholic church reasons and concludes that Jesus MEANT without fail that the bread and wine of communion is CHANGED miraculously into the literal SUBSTANCE of his FLESH and BLOOD when it is blessed by the priest during the sacrifice of the mass, who only has the power to do such miracles. Now the Catholic church also uses John 6:53-56, which we will discuss in depth further on in this study of God's word, but for now I want to ask you a couple of simple questions.
First did Jesus perform a HALF miracle when he CHANGED the water into WINE?
Secondly at the last supper when Jesus was clearly seen as a MAN sitting beside the supper table and KNOWING that a MAN or a human being can NOT be at two places at the SAME time, then HOW could Jesus, who was sitting at the table breaking the bread be AT or beside the table AND be literally holding himself as the piece of BREAD at the SAME time seeing that Jesus was fully a human being? Please keep in mind that the Catholic church, which teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time also state in their doctrine that these two NATURES of Jesus can NOT MIX. Here is what the Catholic church actually states in the Catholic encyclopedia.
The Council of Chalcedon with its dogmatic definition did NOT put an end to the controversy concerning the natures of Christ and their relation to each other. Many people in the East disliked the term person used by the council to signify the union of, or the means of uniting, the two natures in Christ. They believed that Nestorianism was thereby renewed; or at least they thought the definition less satisfactory than St. Cyril's concept of the union of the two natures in Christ (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 2nd ed., 321-22). In Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, and other countries, many monks and ecclesiastics REFUSED to accept the definition of Chalcedon; and Monophysites are found there to this day. (See Dioscurus; Eutychianism; and Monophysitism.)
You can go read the lawyer type language of the Chalcedon council for yourself, but in other more simple language it is stated that FLESH nature of Jesus can NOT DO what the divine nature of Jesus can DO. In other words, ONLY Almighty God,as a DIVINE spiritual being, can be every where at the SAME time whereas HUMAN FLESH can be ONLY at ONE place at any given TIME. Therefore Jesus being made in the nature of HUMAN FLESH can NOT be omnipresent or simply put the FLESH of Jesus can NOT be in more than ONE place at any given time.
So then, this Catholic church definition that is DOGMATIC and INFALLIBLE according the the dogma of the Catholic church most definitely raises another very interesting QUESTION concerning the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which is HOW can the literally FLESH of Jesus be in literally thousands of places all over the world at the SAME time during the offering of the sacrifice of the mass? How can this doctrine be true and infallible when another dogmatic and supposedly infallible Catholic church doctrine clearly states that the FLESH nature of Jesus can NOT DO what the divine nature of Jesus can DO?
The only logical and SOUND BIBLICAL answer to these questions is that these words of Jesus “This is my body” have been INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED by the Catholic church as being LITERAL.
You see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is ONLY the Catholic church and some strict Orthodox churches who INTERPRET these words of Jesus to be LITERALLY saying that when Jesus blessed and broke the bread that he actually CHANGED the very SUBSTANCE of the bread INTO the LITERAL SUBSTANCE of his BODY of FLESH. And that when Jesus lifted up the cup of wine and blessed it that Jesus actually CHANGED the very SUBSTANCE of the wine INTO the LITERAL SUBSTANCE of his BLOOD that he would shortly shed for the sins of the world.
But is their INTERPRETATION a SOUND BIBLICAL interpretation?
Let me ask you another very simple question. When Jesus said these words “I am the DOOR” did Jesus dogmatically mean without fail that he was a LITERAL physical DOOR? Absolutely NOT! Jesus was using FIGURATIVE language conveying the spiritual truth to us that he was the WAY to Almighty God and ETERNAL LIFE.
Let me ask you another very simple question. When Jesus said that he was the “TRUE VINE” did Jesus MEAN that he was LITERALLY a grapevine and that we are LITERALLY branches connected to the true vine? Again absolutely NOT! Again Jesus was use an allegory, a metaphor, and FIGURATIVE language to paint a word picture in the minds of the hearer of the word of God in order to teach a spiritual truth that unless you remain connected to the TRUE teaching that is the WAY that leads to eternal life, then you will NOT obtain eternal life in the world to come.
So then, seeing clearly that Jesus very often used FIGURATIVE language to convey a SPIRITUAL truth, then WHY is it that the Catholic church so dogmatically DEMANDS that all Catholics believe without questioning their supposedly infallible teachings that are based upon THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the words that Jesus spoke when he said “THIS IS MY BODY” as dogmatically meaning that without fail that Jesus MEANT that the broken piece of bread he gave his disciples to eat was in SUBSTANCE his LITERAL body of FLESH?
I mean with what passage of scripture can we COMPARE this SUPPOSED changing from one substance to another substance? That is correct! The passage of scripture where Jesus LITERALLY changed the substance of water INTO the SUBSTANCE of WINE. So once again HOW do we KNOW that the very substance of water was truly CHANGED into the literal substance of wine?
Number one or exhibit A of our SOUND BIBLICAL EVIDENCE from the very word of TRUTH is that we are clearly and plainly told this TRUTH in the very word of God that the water was literally CHANGED into the SUBSTANCE of WINE.
And number two or exhibit B of our SOUND BIBLICAL EVIDENCE from God's WORD is that we can clearly and plainly SEE the REACTION of those who DRANK the water that was CHANGED into wine. In other words, their REACTION was that the wine TASTED very GOOD, which CLEARLY shows us that a TRUE MIRACLE actually took place.
So then, are we clearly and plainly TOLD that Jesus LITERALLY CHANGED the bread that he broke and gave to his disciple to eat into his physical body of flesh? The answer is NO we are NOT! All we are told is that Jesus simply said, “This is my body...”, which can be interpreted in OTHER ways other than the dogmatic way that the Catholic church DEMANDS that it be INTERPRETED by imposing a CURSE of hell fire on any Catholic who does NOT believe in the teaching of the Catholic church on the doctrine of “Transubstantiation”. So in the mind of some Catholics it has be engrained into their thinking to ONLY believe what the CATHOLIC church teaches and NEVER mind what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible teaches. I know, because I was once a Catholic. I know the FEAR of QUESTIONING the teachings of the Catholic church. But you who are Catholic must understand that the teachings of the Catholic church are just THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of what the Bible is saying.
You see my dear brothers and sisters, who are in the Catholic church, it is ONLY the INTERPRETATION that is placed and even FORCED upon the words of Jesus by ONLY the Catholic church and a few strict Orthodox churches who separated from the Catholic church who INTERPRET these words of Jesus to dogmatically mean without fail that Jesus MEANT by his words that he LITERALLY CHANGED the bread and wine into the literal SUBSTANCE of his own flesh and blood.
Now some may try and argue that what I am saying is just an INTERPRETATION as well, so who is to say which interpretation is CORRECT. The answer is that BIBLE itself will let us KNOW which interpretation is correct.
You see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ who are n the Catholic church, what many of the doctrines of the Catholic church teach do NOT AGREE with what the WHOLE word of God is truly saying to us as you will clearly see as you continue to read this in depth study of God's word of TRUTH.
So then, let us continue to examine ALL the EVIDENCE from God's WORD of TRUTH, the Holy Bible. How about exhibit B of our sound Biblical EVIDENCE that should be held higher and above any individual denominational church tradition or INTERPRETATION? Remember exhibit B is the REACTION we SEE from the scriptures of those who ATE the bread and drank the wine at the last supper? So ask yourself the question “Do we actually SEE any REACTION from the disciples that would tell us with absolute certainty that the bread was literally CHANGED into the body of flesh of Jesus like we do indeed SEE when Jesus MIRACULOUSLY changed the water into WINE?
Again the answer is a definite NO! I mean think this through for yourselves my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the catholic church or who are thinking of joining the Catholic church, IF Jesus truly CHANGED the bread INTO the literal SUBSTANCE of his body of FLESH, then you could be absolutely sure that there would without a doubt be a REACTION that could be SEEN or KNOWN in some physical way with our physical sense that those who ATE his supposedly literal BODY of raw flesh and then drank his supposedly literal BLOOD, when they were handed a piece of BREAD to eat and a cup of WINE to drink which they were told to eat and to drink.
But the TRUTH of the matter is that there is absolutely NO reaction whatsoever even in the slightest form that is made by the disciples of Jesus who ate the BREAD and drank the WINE that Jesus gave to them. So the question is WHY? Why do we not SEE any REACTION or evidence from the word of God that Jesus MIRACULOUSLY CHANGED the bread and wine into his literal flesh and blood?
The only SOUND BIBLICAL answer is that Jesus MEANT the bread and the wine to be used as ONLY SYMBOLS to be taken in REMEMBRANCE of the DEATH that Jesus would suffer for them and the sins of the whole world, where the breaking of bread is to represent the body of Jesus that was broken for our physical healing, and where the cup of wine is to represent the blood of Jesus that was shed or spilled for the remission of our sins and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Remember that the word of God also teaches us that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of BLOOD. So the drinking of the wine at communion is SYMBOLIC remembrance of the BLOOD that Jesus shed for us. This is what the whole word of God clearly teaches us, no more and no less, God's WORD teaches us that the bread and wine are to be taken as REMEMBRANCES of the broken body of Jesus that was beaten and broken for the healing of our physical bodies and the shed blood of Jesus that was spilled for the forgiveness of our sins.
Please read the four places in the Bible where the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine is explained to us as a practice that we are instructed to do in REMEMBRANCE of our Lord's death.
“And as they were eating (speaking of eating the last supper right before the beating of the body of Jesus and the crucifixion of Jesus where his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins), Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave IT (The BROKEN piece of BREAD) to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (So then, what do these words MEAN? Was Jesus actually saying take this bread, which I have LITERALLY just MIRACULOUSLY CHANGED into my literal body of FLESH when I blessed it so therefore eat the literal FLESH of my body which will shortly be BROKEN for you? OR was Jesus TRULY saying take this bread that I have broke and eat of it as a symbol of REMEMBRANCE of my body which shall shortly be beating with many stripes and broken for you? Now BOTH of what I just said are ONLY INTERPRETATIONS of what these words of Jesus MAY mean, but which interpretation is best when it is examined closely in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of God? Which INTERPRETATION AGREES with the REST of Gods word. And does either of these interpretations CONTRADICT any other part of God's word? These are questions that must be answered in order to learn which interpretation is a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching of the WHOLE word of God.)
27. And he took the CUP, and gave THANKS, and gave it to them, saying, Drink you all of it; (please notice that I have EPHASIZED the word “CUP” not only here but in other places throughout this study in God's word for a REASON that will become clear to those who are truly seeking the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God as you continue this study in God's WORD rather than continuing in Catholic CHURCH TRADITION and their own personal INTERPRETATION of God's word. You see EVERY church denomination INTERPRETS what the word of God mean, but in order to know what the word of god TRULY means you have to consider the WHOLE word of God and NOT just take a few verses OUT of the CONTEXT of what the entire word of God is TRULY teaching us.)
28. For this is my blood of the NEW testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Whose sins is the blood of Jesus shed? This will become clear when you read this same account in the gospel of Luke and then compare it with the rest of God's word.)
29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of THIS FRUIT of the VINE (speaking of Jesus drinking the SUBSTANCE of LITERAL WINE and NOT his very own BLOOD), until that day when I drink IT new with you IN my Father's kingdom. ( you see the SACRIFICE of Jesus shedding his BLOOD for the atonement of the sins of the world was a ONCE and for ALL time sacrifice that would NEVER be offered again, which brings into QUESTION the Catholic doctrine and ceremony of the SACRIFICE of the mass as being a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching as well?. But this is another study in and of itself, which we will cover later. In other words, Jesus is NOT going to drink his own literal BLOOD in the kingdom of his Father, but rather Jesus will be partaking of the REWARDS of his shed blood in the world to come, when he sits down with those he has redeem to his God and Father by the shedding of his blood of the cross. Jesus will be drinking or doing his Father;s WILL when he comes again to finish his work in his father;s kingdom. And Jesus may no doubt once again drink literal WINE in his father's kingdom when he returns. Can you not see my dear brothers, and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, that Jesus is saying to his disciples at the last supper that this wine that I give to you now to drink in REMEMBRANCE of my shed blood that I will shorty shed for your sins and the sins of the whole world, that I will not enjoy the fruit of the VINE, until I drink of partake of IT in the coming kingdom of my Father. Jesus was NOT speaking of his LITERAL BLOOD that he would be drinking in the world to come, NOR was Jesus meaning by his words “this is my BLOOD” that his disciple were to believe that the cup of wine was being changed into his literal BLOOD.)”
Now the gospel of Mark 14:22-24, reads almost word for word the same as the account given in Matthew.
“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. (So then again, what do these words MEAN? Was Jesus actually saying take this bread, which I have LITERALLY just MIRACULOUSLY CHANGED into my body of FLESH when I blessed it so therefore eat the literal FLESH of my body which will shortly be BROKEN for you? OR was Jesus TRULY saying take this bread that I have broke and eat of it as a symbol of REMEMBRANCE of my body which shall shortly be beating with many stripes and broken for you? Now BOTH of what I just said are ONLY INTERPRETATIONS or what these words of Jesus MAY mean, but which interpretation is best when it is examined closely in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of God? Which INTERPRETATION AGREES with the REST of God;s word. And does either of these interpretation CONTRADICT any other part of God's word? These are questions that must be answered in order to learn which interpretation is a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching of the WHOLE word of God.)
23. And he took the CUP, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. (again notice the word CUP and that all the disciples DRANK of the CUP Jesus gave them to DRINK. We will see what the Bible means by the word “CUP” and what the Bible actually means to DRINK of the CUP further on in this study)
25, Verily (or TRULY) I say unto you, I will drink no more of the FRUIT of the VINE, (please notice that Jesus did NOT say that he would no more drink of his BLOOD, but rather Jesus plainly states that he shall not drink any more WINE or any more of the FRUIT of the VINE) until that day that I drink it new IN the kingdom of God.(therefore Jesus could NOT possible mean that he was not going to drink his literal BLOOD in the world to come, because this would CONTRADICT another part of Gods word where we are plainly told that the SACRIFICE that Jesus made by laying down his own life shedding his BLOOD for the remission of SIN was a ONCE and for ALL TIME sacrifice that would be offered just that ONE time and would NEVER be OFFERED again over and over, which again brings into to QUESTION the OFFERING of the SACRIFICE of the MASS over and over week after week. Jesus never taught his church to OFFER communion as a SACRIFICE over and over, but rather taught his church to break BREAD in REMEMBRANCE of his body that was BROKEN for our physical healing, and to share a drink of wine from a CUP as a REMEMBRANCE of the CUP of SUFFERING that Jesus bore for us by the shedding of his blood of the cross. Communion is a symbolic practice that we as Christians do in REMEMBRANCE of our Lord's DEATH.)”
Then we read in the gospel of Luke 22:15-22 where Jesus describes this breaking of bread to be done in REMEMBRANCE of his death.
16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof,(not specifically speaking of suffering, but rather of eating, as in, DOING the WILL of the Father) until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.(or until the work and will of God is COMPLETED in the coming kingdom of God, the 1000 year reign of Jesus.)
17. And he took the CUP, and gave thanks, and said, Take this (the CUP filled with WINE as a representation of the blood of Jesus that he shed FOR the forgiveness of sins for the whole world), and divide it among yourselves (or share it with each other taking a small sip or drink until it is all consumed leaving nothing left over):
18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the FRUIT of the VINE, until the kingdom of God shall come. (If Jesus TRUY meant that the CUP of WINE that he lifted up and gave thanks to God for and then gave the CUP to his disciples to drink the wine and said this is the CUP of the NEW TESTAMENT IN my BLOOD for your sins actually changed into the literal BLOOD of Jesus and was NO LONGER WINE, then why did Jesus turn right around in the very next verse and say that he would not drink of the fruit of the VINE until he drank the fruit of the VINE in his Father's kingdom? Does a grapevine bleed BLOOD? If the fruit if the VINE that we all know is WINE was truly changed into the literal BLOOD of Jesus, the why did Jesus not say I will not drink of my BLOOD again until I drink it in my Father's kingdom seeing that he supposedly knew that he had just changed the wine into his blood? The obvious answer is that Jesus did NOT MEAN for his WORDS to be INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED to mean that he was LITERALLY saying that we are to drink his LITERAL BLOOD. Again did Jesus literal MEAN that he was a LITERAL PHYSICAL DOOR when he said Ï am the DOOR? Absolutely NOT! Jesus was using FIRGURATIVE language to convey a SPIRITUAL truth. So then, why does the Catholic church who agrees that Jesus very often speaks in FIGURATIVE language dogmatically demand with a CURSE upon all who do not believe that in this one instance that Jesus LITERALLY mean that the bread IS his LITERAL body of FLESH when all other places Jesus was speaking FIGURATIVELY?
Also these words that Jesus said that he will NOT DRINK of FRUIT of the VINE, UNTIL he drank it IN the coming KINGDOM of God can mean that Jesus is at rest right now sitting by his Father's side until he comes again to FINISH the work that he started at his first coming. You see, we are the BRANCHES and Jesus is the true vine who WORKED the works of God while he was on the earth, but now SITS at his Father's side awaiting his return when he will once again DRINK of the FRUIT of the VINE, which may mean that Jesus will not work the works of God UNTIL he DRINKS or DOES the WILL of his Father IN the KINGDOM of God. So then, we can see that the CUP that Jesus drank from IS the establishment of the NEW TESTAMENT that was made between Almighty God and man by his chosen anointed one Jesus who who became obedient unto death on the cross to shed therefore establishing the NEW testament IN the BLOOD that he shed for the sins of the whole world and thus fulfilled the WILL of his God and Father up to that point in time. And then when Jesus returns he will continue his drinking his Father's WILL and turn to Israel a SECOND time to bring Israel into eternal life of whosoever of all of Israel that will COME. Here is John 18:11 that clearly shows us that to DRINK the CUP is to SUFFER our flesh to DO the Father's WILL. “Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up your sword into the sheath: the CUP which my Father hath given me, shall I not DRINK it? So the that language of the Bible tells us that DRINKING the CUP is OBEYING the Father's WILL. In other words, IF we do NOT take up our “CROSS of SUFFERING our flesh to DO the Father's WILL”, then we do not truly have eternal life abiding is us. We may SAY that we love God, but if we do not SHOW our faith BY our WORKS of LOVE and WORKS of RIGHTEOUSNESS, then we LIE and the TRUTH is NOT truly is us as it should be.
This is what Jesus truly means by his words that we read in John chapter 6, which we we cover shortly. Please take a closer look and notice that more emphasis is placed on the bread being BROKEN for YOU. And more emphasis is placed upon the CUP as what is actually being said to be the NEW TESTAMENT that was established IN the shed blood of Jesus. In other words, the focus is upon the CUP that Jesus needed to DRINK in order to establish the NEW Testament between God and mankind. This will become clearer as you continue this study in God's word.)
19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and BROKE IT (as a SYMBOLIC example of how his physical body of flesh would soon be beaten with many stripes and BROKEN for the HEALING of our physical bodies), and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is GIVEN for you: this DO in REMEMBRANCE of me. (Jesus did NOT say this DO as an OFFERING of a SACRIFICE to God of my literal body of FLESH and shed BLOOD. But rather Jesus plainly and clearly said this DO in REMEMBRANCE of me)
20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This CUP IS the NEW testament IN my blood, which is shed for you. (please notice that Jesus say THIS CUP and not just his blood IS the NEW Testament IN my blood. So the CUP that Jesus was to SUFFER by shedding his blood IS what established the NEW Testament)”
Please notice that in the gospel of Luke Jesus gives us a little more detail of what Jesus actual MEANS by his words “This is my body”and “This is my blood” and goes on to say, “This CUP IS the NEW testament IN my blood, which is shed for you.”
In other words, the FOCUS is on the word “CUP” as being the NEW TESTAMENT that is established by the shedding of his BLOOD. Remember in the garden Jesus prayed to the Father that if their be any way for this CUP to pass from him so that he did not have to DRINK of the CUP of his death by shedding his blood on the cross, then let it be so. But then Jesus knew that to OBEY his Father's WILL was the only way for the sins of mankind to be washed away so he said never mind what I just asked of you Father for the CUP of my SUFFERING death on the cross to pass from me, but rather let your WILL be done instead of my own will be done. Jesus was strengthened by his prayer to God to TAKE UP HIS CROSS and bare it by SUFFERING his own flesh to DO the Father's WILL.
Please read Matthew 26:36-45 where we read about Jesus agonizing in prayer in the garden of Gethsemane about DRINKING of the CUP of his Fathers WILL for him to DRINK.
37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
38. Then said he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry you here, and watch WITH ME. (Jesus was saying to his disciples, Hey I need you help. Please pray WITH ME about the TEMPTATION that I am going through right now so that I am NOT over come by the enemy to not OBEY my Father's WILL to DRINK of this CUP that is set before me to DRINK, which is to suffer and die a shameful and cursed death on the cross.)
39. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be POSSIBLE, let this CUP pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you WILL. (the CUP set before Jesus to DRINK was the Father's WILL or plan of salvation for mankind that Jesus already knew that he must do, but his flesh was being TEMPTED not to obey his Father's WILL. The flesh of Jesus that was weak did NOT want to DRINK of the CUP of SUFFERING)
41. Watch and pray (WHY? Why is Jesus warning us to watch and pray?), that (or so that) you enter NOT into temptation (or more precisely that you be NOT OVER COME by the temptations of the enemy. This is why Jesus agonized in PRAYING this same prayer three times, because his flesh was weak and he needed God's strength to OVER COME this temptation of the enemy to NOT DRINK of this CUP of SUFFERING which was his Father's WILL for his only begotten Son to suffer a shameful death on the cross and shed his innocent blood for the redemption of mankind. You see, Jesus was NOT praying to find out what God's WILL was for his life, because Jesus was already plainly told on the mount of transfiguration of what death he should SUFFER on the cross so Jesus ALREADY KNEW what his Father's WILL was for him to do. Jesus was agonizing over the TEMPTATION of the enemy to NOT go through with his Father's WILL and become OBEDIENT to DEATH, even the DEATH on the CROSS because cursed is he who suffers death on a cross. The spirit or the inner man of Jesus was indeed willing to obey his Father's WILL and DRINK of the CUP of SUFFERING that was placed before him to DRINK, but the fleshly desires of Jesus was WEAK and he knew he needed to PRAY to his God and Father for STRENGTH not to be over come by this temptation of the enemy not to obey his Father's WILL to DRINK of the CUP of suffering death on the cross of shame): the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this CUP may not pass away from me, except I DRINK IT, your WILL be done. (so Jesus finally came to know and understand that the only way for this temptation from the enemy not to do the WILL of his Father was for Jesus to firmly make up his mind to take up his cross to OBEY his Father's WILL and DRINK of the CUP of SUFFERING that was set before him to DRINK)
But what does all of this mean? Can you not see my dear brothers and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, that the WORD of Almighty God clearly and plainly teaches us that the CUP is symbolic language that represents the act of obedience to DO the Father's WILL over our own will. The CUP that Jesus drank was learning OBEDIENCE to DO the Father's WILL even if it meant laying down his own life to suffer the most brutal and cursed death on a cross, which was a SHAMEFUL and most degrading way to die in the minds of the Jews. And the CUP that Jesus gave us to drink was to REMEMBER the SUFFERING and DEATH that Jesus went through for US and to REMEMBER the WORDS of Jesus when he said that the servant is not above his TEACHER.
Therefore we are to REMEMBER that seeing that Jesus our TEACHER was PERSECUTED and SUFFERED for the sake of the GOSPEL, that we too must suffer much tribulation in order to enter into eternal life in the kingdom of God which is to come. So then the CUP of communion is to REMIND us that we too must DRINK of the CUP of SUFFERING that Jesus our teacher drank before us. No this does NOT mean that we all must die on a cross in order to obtain eternal life. That particular CUP was given to Jesus alone to suffer and do. When Jesus said that we are to take up our CROSS he was again speaking FIGURATIVELY and NOT to taking up a LITERAL cross. Jesus was conveying to us the SPIRITUAL TRUTH that unless we OBEY the WILL of Almighty God the Father we will NOT obtain our reward of ETERNAL LIFE in the world to come. This is what Jesus means when he said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have ETERNAL LIFE. Jesus was NOT speaking in a LITERAL sense, but rather in a FIGURATIVE way to teach us the SPIRITUAL TRUTH of OBEDIENCE to God's WILL, which we can understand by the TEACHINGS of Jesus and the Apostles in their letters of instruction to the church. Please read the studies that I have written on this subject of “HOW CAN I BE SAVED?” for what the BIBLE teaches that we must do in order to be saved AND receive eternal life in the world to come, but for now let us focus on this study to learn what Jesus truly means when he broke the BREAD and said, “This is my body that is BROKEN for you”?
Now the word “BREAD” in the Bible represents “DOCTRINE” or “TEACHING”. In other words, the word “BREAD” is SYMBOLIC of the TEACHINGS of Jesus that we must eat or DO or OBEY if we so desire to receive the promise of the reward of eternal life in the world to come. Plain and simple if we do not DO the WILL of God now in this resent world we shall NOT eat or partake of the BREAD of eternal life in the world to come. Please read Matthew 16:5-12, where Jesus teaches us that “BREAD” represents a DOCTRINE or a TEACHING.
11. How is it that you do NOT understand that I spoke it NOT to you concerning BREAD, that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? (in other words, Jesus was not speaking of LITERAL leaven or literal BREAD, but rather Jesus was speaking of beware of the TEACHINGS of the pharisees)
12. Then UNDERSTOOD they how that he bade them NOT beware of the leaven of BREAD, BUT of the DOCTRINE (or the TEACHING) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
Now that you UNDERSTAND that BREAD is SYMBOLIC language, which means TEACHING let us now take a close look at John 6:26-69, which teaches us that the WORDS that Jesus SPOKE are Spirit and LIFE. In other words, Jesus tells us the HE is the ONE sent by God that was prophesied to be the savior of mankind. Jesus said that he was the BREAD of LIFE, meaning that the WORDS that Jesus TAUGHT will bring LIFE, as in, eternal life to those who EAT or BELIEVE and OBEY his WORDS or his TEACHINGS that he was sent by God to DRINK the CUP of OBEDIENCE to suffer and to lay down his life of FLESH by becoming OBEDIENT unto death and even death on the cross for the redemption of mankind.
Now as you read John 6:26-69 please keep in mind that the Catholic church does indeed see and understand that when Jesus said “I am the BREAD of LIFE...” that Jesus was indeed using FIGURATIVE language where Jesus did NOT mean that he was a LITERAL loaf of BREAD, but rather that these FIGURATIVE words used by Jesus in so many places were used to TEACH us a SPIRITUAL TRUTH. But then for some unknown reason the Catholic church reasoned and concluded that the words Jesus used saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood must without fail be INTERPRETED as being LITERAL and if any say that they are SYMBOLIC in meaning then they are anathema or cursed with a curse by God. So the question now becomes is the Catholic church CORRECT in their own personal INTERPRETATION of John chapter 6? Let us go to the very word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible to answer this most important question “Is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching?”.
Now this is a rather long passage of scripture, but in order to see the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God then we must keep John 6:53-56 IN the WHOLE CONTEXT of where it is found.
As I have said many times any verse or passage of scripture when taken OUT of CONTEXT and viewed ALONE and APART from the REST of God's word may SEEM to be saying something that it is NOT TRULY saying. And it is John 6:53-56 that is taken OUT of CONTEXT by the Catholic church to teach their doctrine of transubstantiation. And yes on the surface when these few verse are viewed ALONE and APART from the REST of God's word they do SEEM to be saying that we as Christians must eat the LITERAL flesh of Jesus and drink the LITERAL blood of Jesus in order to obtain eternal life in the world to come.
However, when these few verses are LEFT in the CONTEXT of where they are found and then VIEWED in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of God any one who is truly seeking the TRUTH of the whole word of God can clearly see that Jesus is again using SYMBOLIC language in John 6:53-56. So this is why I am have you to CLOSELY examine the entire CONTEXT by reading John chapter 6 verses 26 all the way through verse 69 so that you can understand the bigger picture of what Jesus truly meant by his words, “This is my body...” and “This in my blood...”.
Here is John 6:26-29.
27. Labor not for the MEAT which perishes (or do not labor only for mere bread that will perish and leave you hungry again), but for that MEAT which endures unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall GIVE unto you: for him has God the Father sealed. (in other words, Jesus was saying that HE was that MEAT indeed which we should work or labor to follow in his steps and pattern our life after, which will bring us the reward of eternal life if so be that we work the works of God by believing on Jesus and OBEYING his WORDS or his TEACHINGS.)
29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE on him whom he has sent. (that is just step one of working the works of God to be saved. So by believing the Jesus is the Messiah we are forgiven of all our past sins and place back into a right relationship with Almighty God. Please keep in mind that this is NOT the ONLY verse in the Bible. So therefore we must consider what the WHOLE word of God teaches us in the NEW Testament by the words of Jesus and his apostles to determine what we must do in order to be saved AND what we must DO in order the receive the END of our salvation which in eternal life in the word to come)
30. They said therefore unto him, What SIGN show you then, that we may see, and believe you? What do you work? (remember that Jesus said that they would be given only ONE SIGN that he was truly the Messiah and that SIGN was the sign of Jonah which was speaking of the death and resurrection of Jesus the chosen one of God to be the atonement for the sins of the world)
33. For the bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the WORLD. (So then, how does Jesus give us eternal life? By the preaching of the GOSPEL or the TEACHING of God's WORD that Jesus laid down his life and shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins of the whole WORLD, so that WHOSOEVER of whatever person in the whole world BELIEVES could be brought back into a right relationship with Almighty God and be empowered by the Holy Spirit to live a life of obedience to the teaching of Jesus and his disciples. Now IF Jesus truly meant these words to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be referring to the bread and wine of COMMUNION, then the church should be giving COMMUNION to the WHOLE world rather than keeping this gift of eternal life within the walls of the church. But clearly Jesus did NOT mean by his words here in John 6:53-56 which are taken out of context and INTERPRETED to mean that only the church during communion is LITERALLY eating the flesh of Jesus and literally drinking his blood, because Jesus is speaking that eating his flesh and drinking his blood is for the WHOLE WORLD. In other words, any person in the whole world can receive eternal life IF the EAT the FLESH of Jesus and they DRINK the BLOOD of Jesus. Can you not see that Jesus is NOT speaking to ONLY his DISCIPLES as he was at the last supper, but rather Jesus is literally speaking to the WHOLE world here in John chapter 6. Please keep reading and this will become more clear to you.)
35. And Jesus said unto them, I am the BREAD of life: he that COMES to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVES on me shall never thirst. (please remember that even the Catholic church properly interprets these words of Jesus as being FIGURATIVE and that the BREAD only REPRESENTS the eternal life that only Jesus can give to the WORLD)
40. And THIS is the WILL of him that sent me (or What I am about to say to you IS the WILL of my Father and the CUP that every one who understands my words must DRINK in order to obtain eternal life in the world to come), that every one which sees the Son (or so that every one who truly understands that Jesus is the Son of God that Almighty God sent to die for the sins of the world, meaning that YOU understand that Jesus die for YOUR sins), and BELIEVES on him (which mean that you truly understand and acknowledge by the confession of your mouth that you believe with all your heart that Jesus died for your sins and the God raised him from the dead then you), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (but again please keep in mind and remember that this is NOT the only verse in the Bible and that there are other verses that add to what truly BELIEVING actually MEANS in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of God. You see Jesus ALSO in John 14:23 said that IF we LOVE him then we will KEEP his WORDS. They are many verses in the Bible that clearly teach us that we must OBEY the words of Jesus in order to obtain eternal life in the world to come.)
48. I am that bread of life. (In other words, Jesus was saying the HE is the ONE that the Scripture prophesied will come from God to be raised up from among the people to become the MESSIAH by obey the will of the Father to become obedient unto death on the cross which was his CUP to bear.)
51. I am the LIVING BREAD which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will GIVE is my FLESH, which I will GIVE for the life of the world (So simply ask yourself the question of HOW did Jesus GIVE his FLESH to be eaten for the redemption of ALL of mankind? Well we see that Romans 10:8,9 teaches us that the WORD of faith that is PREACHED or is TAUGHT to us will produce salvation in us that will produce works of righteousness that will lead us to obtain eternal life in the world to come. “But what says it? The WORD is nigh you, even in your mouth, and in your heart: that is, the WORD of faith, which we PREACH; 9 That if you shall confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. 10 For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” ).
52. The Jews (people that had not yet BELIEVED in Jesus as the Messiah) therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his FLESH to eat? (The Jews did NOT understand that Jesus did NOT mean his LITERAL flesh and blood, but rather Jesus was speaking of his TEACHINGS to DRINK of his Father's WILL, which is the CUP of SUFFERING fro the sake of the gospel. Now comes the verses that the Catholic church takes OUT of the CONTEXT that we just read with even MORE CONTEXT that follows these four verses.)
56. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. (please understand that Jesus is NOT speaking of literally eating his human flesh and drinking his human blood. This is ONLY the INTERPRETATION that the Catholic church dogmatically demands that these words mean without fail. But rather the TRUE meaning of these four verse when they are LEFT in their CONTEXT and then interpreted in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God is that Jesus was speaking of eating, as in, believing and obeying his TEACHINGS to DO the Father's WILL and DRINK of the CUP of SUFFERING for the sake of the gospel even if it means laying down our very own lives for the WILL of God and the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.)
57. As the living Father has sent me, and I LIVE by the Father (meaning that Jesus LIVED his LIFE in OBEDIENCE to the WILL of the Father and therefore Almighty God the Father HIGHLY EXALTED his Son and GAVE him ETERNAL LIFE and a NAME that is above all other names except that Father himself): so he that eats me, even he shall LIVE by me. (Jesus DEVOURED or EAT the WORD of Almighty God as SPIRITUAL food and OBEY that word or the TEACHINGS of God to OVER COME the god of this world and therefore is was rewarded the PRIZE that was set BEFORE him. So Jesus says that in the same way that I myself have obeyed and OVER COME the god of this world to obtain eteranl life, then so must you also LIVE by the example that I have set for you to follow in my steps)
58. This is that BREAD which came down from heaven: NOT as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead (meaning that Jesus is NOT speaking of literal BREAD, but rather Jesus was referring to his WORDS or his TEACHING as being the bread that would produce eternal life in those who BELIEVE and OBEY his WORDS or his TEACHINGS): he that EAT of THIS BREAD shall live for ever.
60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (or this is a hard sermon to UNDERSTAND. What does Jesus mean that we must EAT his flesh? How can we literally EAT his flesh? Who can UNDERSTAND these words? Now one of the reasons why even some of the disciples said this was a hard saying may have been that they too literally THOUGHT at that TIME that Jesus was saying to eat his literal flesh and to drink his literal blood. But we know that Jesus explained otherwise to them, or there would be as much clear teaching on eating the LITERAL flesh of Jesus in the New Testament as there is on teaching of the resurrection to make absolute sure that every one knows without a doubt that Jesus meant his LITERAL FLESH must be eaten and his LITERAL BLOOD must be drank in order to be SAVED an receive ETERNAL LIFE. And yet we only find this ONE verse in the whole Bible that the Catholic church has INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED and then dogmatically demanded that they are INFALLIBLE in interpreting the scriptures so therefore they ALONE are the ONE and ONLY TRUE church and every other Christian is a HERETIC simply because they do NOT AGREE with the INTERPRETATION of the Catholic church. Therefore FEAR is instilled into the minds of the Catholic Christian to dare NOT to QUESTION what the Catholic church teaches. Never mind what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible teaches, because the in the mind of the Catholic the popes have INFALLIBLY interpreted the Bible so there is no need for them to read it for THEMSELVES. I know this to be true, because I was once a Catholic and a very devout an faithful Catholic at that, but yet I never read the Bible UNTIL I left the Catholic church. Not because of seeing that their teachings did not agree with the whole word of God, but because ai could not understand all the FIGHTING between Catholics and Protestants. You see my sister, who was and still is a Catholic at this writing of this study wanted to marry a man that just happened to be a Protestant ,but the Catholic church would not allow this union to take place. Now we are Not talking about a Christian marry a NON Christian, but rather we are talking about a Catholic not being allowed to marry a CHRISTIAN because of the doctrine of the Catholic church. Or could it be that the Catholic church even though they say with their mouth that the believe that other churches are CHRISTIAN and belong to Jesus, but in their doctrine they do not truly believe that any one is saved unless they are ROMAN CATHOLIC. Anyway the issue that caused me to leave the Catholic church was all the FIGHTING between the Catholic church not allowing my sister to be married. Their were other reasons as well, but this particular one was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak FIGURATIVELY. You can read about these other reasons in my personal testimony, but for now please continue with this study that we are presently focusing upon which is QUESTIONING whether or not the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching?)
61. When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it (or QUESTIONED what Jesus meant. Now if the very disciples of Jesus QUESTIONED what he truly meant, then why would it be wrong for you as a Catholic to QUESTION the INTERPRETATION of the Catholic church? Be assured my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, there is nothing wrong with QUESTIONING what you are being TAUGHT. In fact the word of God calls this a most noble thing to SEARCH the SCRIPTURES for YOURSELF to see if what you are being taught is the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.), he said unto them, Does this offend you?
62. What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (or what if you shall WITNESS me DRINKING this CUP that my Father has set before me to drink speaking of the crucifixion of Jesus? And then what if you shall WITNESS me being RAISED back to LIFE from the dead. And then what if you WITNESS my new IMMORTAL BODY that I will receive from my God and my Father when I ascend into heaven right after he raises me from the dead and then I come back down from my Father in heaven to SHOW you by many infallible proofs that I am alive forever more never again to die? And then what if you shall WITNESS me ascending back up into heaven to my God and my Father to sit on his throne at his right hand as one highly exalted to reign in the kingdom of God? Will you then BELIEVE the WORDS that I speak unto you?)
63. It is the spirit that quickens (or the Spirit of Almighty God gives life) the FLESH profits nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, THEY are SPIRIT, and THEY are life. (You see, it is the GOSPEL of our salvation and our faith or our believing in the WORDS or the TEACHINGS of Jesus that brings us eternal life and not the supposed eating of the LITERAL FLESH of Jesus that brings eternal life. The meaning of the words eating bread in the Bible means BELIEVING TEACHING. So what Jesus was truly saying when he said those who eat MY FLESH, which he ALSO called BREAD at the last supper, which was BROKEN for US, is that we are to BELIEVE HIS TEACHINGS and NOT the FALSE teaching of the scribes and Pharisees or any other false teaching for that matter. And then the DRINKING of the CUP of WINE as being FIGURATIVE language speaking of Jesus DRINKING of the CUP of his SUFFERING and shedding of BLOOD should by now be very CLEAR to you that Jesus was NOT speaking of us actually drinking his LITERAL BLOOD that flowed in his veins)
64. But there are some of you that BELIEVE NOT. (could this be a prophecy of the Catholic church and their false doctrine of transubstantiation, who MISUNDERSTOOD the words of Jesus and THOUGHT that he meant his LITERAL FLESH a was to be eaten and his LITERAL BLOOD was to be drank in order to receive eternal life?) For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
66. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (so not only the Jews walked away because they thought that Jesus was a crazy man because they themselves misunderstood the words of Jesus by THINKING that Jesus was expecting people to LITERALLY eat his flesh and to LITERALLY drink his blood in order to receive eternal life and they KNEW that this was no where to be found in the scriptures. But many of his disciples perhaps did understand the words of Jesus and still walked away because they weighed the COST of what it would mean to truly be a follower of Jesus and they were not ready to DIE for the sake of the gospel.)
All through this passage of scripture Jesus emphasizes that we must BELIEVE that Jesus is THAT CHRIST whom the scriptures foretold. In other words, the CONTEXT of this entire passage of scripture teaches us that we must BELIEVE the WORDS or the TEACHINGS of Jesus in order to have ETERNAL LIFE abiding in us. The CUP that we as Christians are to DRINK is to become OBEDIENT to the teachings of Jesus and to be found faithful unto the end in order to obtain eternal life in the world to come. This is what Jesus means by his words that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Now please read Mark 8:14-38 to tie everything together.
“Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
17. And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason you, because you have no BREAD? (in other words, Jesus was saying I am the bread of life, BELIEVE and TRUST in my WORDS that I speak unto you) Perceive you not yet, neither understand? Have ye your heart yet hardened ?
20. And when the seven among four thousand, How many baskets full of fragments took you up? And they said, Seven. (now I personally believe that it was not just a coincidence that Jesus had just miraculously changed a five small loafs of bread into enough BREAD to feed to the point of being stuffed five thousand people and still gather twelve baskets full of bread that was left over)
25. After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly. (then right after saying to his disciple How is it that you do NOT UNDERSTAND what I am TEACHING you, then the Holy Spirit leads Jesus to heal a BLIND man so that his EYES would be OPENED to SEE. What a coincidence! Or was this just another coincidence? Are your eyes of understanding beginning to be OPENED? If not please keep on reading and they will be if you are truly seeking to know the TRUTH of the whole word of God even if it means that you must reject your church traditions and be considered a heretic by your fellow Catholic brothers and sisters in the Lord.)
29. And he said unto them, But whom say YOU that I am? And Peter answers and said unto him, You are the Christ. (Whom do YOU say that Jesus is? This is the most important question you shall ever answer. Do you truly BELIEVE that Jesus is the CHRIST, the MESSIAH sent by God to suffer and die for YOUR SINS? For IF you truly believe this TEACHING of Jesus, then you will PURIFY yourself EVEN as He is PURE. You will take up your cross and you will DENY the lust of your flesh and lay down your own will to OBEY the WILL of Almighty God your Father. You will DRINK the CUP of SUFFERING the temptations of the enemy to try and get you to sin. You will CRUCIFY your FLESH every single day and NOT be over come by the deceitfulness of sin. This is the CUP that we are to DRINK. Can you not see my dear brothers and sister who are in the Catholic church that the bread and wine are ONLY SYMBOLS to remind us of what a great price that Jesus paid to REDEEM us back to God, so that we do not let his suffering to set us free from sin be in VAIN.)
31. And he began to TEACH them, that the Son of man must SUFFER many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be KILLED, and after three days rise again. (This is the BREAD that is BROKEN for us, and this this the CUP of WINE the Jesus DRANK for us. And it is the TEACHINGS of Jesus that we are to EAT or BELIEVE and OBEY in order to obtain eternal life in the world to come. The EMBLEMS of BROKEN BREAD and the CUP of WINE that we share or partake of at communion are just symbols the be partake of in REMEMBRANCE of the death of our Lord who died for our sins so that whosoever BELIEVES on him should Not perish but should have eternal life in the world to come)
35. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it (in other words, IF you do not DRINK of the CUP of SUFFERING to OBEY the WILL of Almighty God to CRUCIFY your sinful FLESH and DENY yourself those sinful pleasures then you shall LOSE your reward of eternal life); BUT whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. (this means that if you lay down your own will to OBEY God's will you will be saved and you shall inherit eternal life in the world to come. And this may also require some to lay down their physical lives to be martyred for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that gospel teaches us that Jesus is that CHRIST, the SON of the living and most high God who died for the sins of the whole world that WHOSOEVER BELIEVES as in CONTINUES to believe unto the end shall be saved where the full meaning of BELIEVE is to OBEY the TEACHINGS of Jesus.)
36. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul (The Holy Spirit just prompted me to say right here that even though the Muslims, who hold to the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur’an following Islam, may indeed conquer the whole world, but what will that profit them seeing that they do NOT BELEIVE the word of TRUTH that Jesus is the CHRIST and the SON of the one true and only Almighty God the Father, which is what Almighty God himself REQUIRES that mankind MUST believe or they shall LOSE their SOUL on the day of JUDGMENT)?
38. Whosoever therefore shall be ASHAMED of ME and of my WORDS in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him ALSO shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
So then, the number one reason WHY that I myself, who was born and raised in the Catholic faith, do NOT believe in the false doctrine of transubstantiation is that it does NOT agree with what the WHOLE word of God clearly and plainly teaches us.
To ME, it is very clear that the DIFFERENCE between what the Catholic church teaches about the ordinance of COMMUNION, the breaking of bread in remembrance of the suffering and death of Jesus and what the many Protestant denominations teach on the ordinance of communion or the breaking of bread among BELIEVERS is the INTERPRETATION of what Jesus is actually MEANING by his words.
Now whether you are Protestant or whether you are Catholic Christians everywhere universally believe and teach that ONLY those who are BELIEVERS may partake in COMMUNION. So then, with that be said and completely understood that ONLY true born again BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ are instructed the break bread in REMEMBRANCE of the suffering and DEATH of their Lord and savior let us take even a CLOSER look at this ordinance of communion instituted by Jesus.
Let us go back and take and even CLOSER look at John 6:48-52 where we see that Jesus was the BREAD of LIFE that was given to the WHOLE WORLD so that ANY man who ATE this BREAD would LIVE and NOT die. In other words, Jesus is NOT talking about the ordinance of COMMUNION, the breaking of bread here in John chapter 6. In fact the ordinance of communion is NOT even mentioned even in the smallest detail in the entire gospel of John.
“48. I am that BREAD of LIFE. (again even the Catholic church understands and teaches that Jesus is using FIGURATIVE language here and that Jesus does NOT mean that he is saying that he is a LITERAL loaf of BREAD that if one eats they will LIVE and NOT die, But yet the Catholic church dogmatically demands that in John 6:53 that the FLESH if Jesus must without fail mean the LITERAL FLESH of the LITERAL physical human body of Jesus must be EATEN as in consumed by the mouth and swallowed in order to receive ETERNAL LIFE.)
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if ANY MAN EAT of THIS BREAD, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give FOR the LIFE of the WORLD. (clearly Jesus is NOT speaking about the breaking of bread of communion that is only instituted by Jesus for those who are ALREADY BELIEVERS. Jesus is talking about his life that he shall lay down for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD so that ANY MAN WHOSOEVER EATS the BREAD meaning that whosoever of any person in the whole world who BELIEVES the TEACHINGS of Jesus and the New Testament that Jesus is that CHRIST, the SON of the one true and only Almighty God the Father will NOT perish, but shall have eternal life.)
Now some argue and say that the Jews knew right well that Jesus was speaking of his LITERAL FLESH that Jesus was telling them that they must EAT in order to have eternal life, but just because the Jews did not UNDERSTAND the teaching of Jesus does NOT dogmatically mean the Jesus meant without fail that if was his LITERAL FLESH that every person in the whole wold must eat in order to be given eternal life.
I mean THINK this through for yourself my dear brothers and sisters who are in the Catholic church. IF this is TRULY what Jesus meant by his words in John 6:53-56, then why is not the Catholic church going out into the WORLD to give COMMUNION to every single person so that they can have eternal life? Why does the Catholic church just teach people that if you EAT this piece of bread and you drink this small sip from this cup of wine that the priest has consecrated and blessed to be changed into the body and blood of Jesus, then you shall receive ETERNAL LIFE in the world to come? I will tell you why. It is because that these few verses are NOT the WHOLE word of Almighty God.
In other words, that Catholic church knows right well that the word of God ALSO teaches us those who eat the bread and drink the wine of CUMMUNION that are UNWORTHY shall bring judgment upon themselves. Please read 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 which teaches us that the breaking of bread of communion is for BELIEVERS only and is NOT meant for the unbelievers in the world.
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24. And when he had given thanks, he BROKE it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is BROKEN FOR YOU: this DO in REMEMBRANCE of me. (again Jesus did NOT say this DO as an OFFERING of a SACRIFICE to God of my literal flesh and blood when you come together, but rather Jesus simply said DO this in REMEMBRANCE of him. Communion is a reflection on what our Lord and savior Jesus Christ did for US when he SUFFERED and DIED a shameful death on the cross. It is this SYMBOLISM of the BREAKING of BREAD that REMINDS us that Jesus did NOT bare those brutal stripes on his back in VAIN. If you do not get anything out if this study in God's word because of the hardness of your own heart, then I pray that you will at least UNDERSTAND that Jesus bore those stripes on his back for YOUR physical HEALING of your body. DISCERN this TRUTH.)
30. For this CAUSE (or for this very reason that you do NOT discern that the body of Jesus was beaten with many stripes and was BROKEN for your physical HEALING) many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (or many die prematurely because they did not discern and understand that Jesus bore those stripe on his back for their HEALING of their physical bodies)
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, tarry one for another.
Now the context of eating UNWORTHILY also includes a Christian who is knowing and willingly living in SIN as being UNWORTHY to partake of communion, because it would be like a slap in the face to the suffering that Jesus went through to set them free from the bondage of sin. Therefore a Christian who is living in willful sin should NOT partake of communion until they confess their sins to God, for you see sin lifts God's protection from the life of a believer opening the door for the devil to come in and devour a child of God. You see, Satan cannot just devour any one whom so ever he pleases, but rather they devil must go about SEEKING whom he may devour. Again this is another study in and of itself. If you want to know more about the HEALING that God has prided for you please read the studies that I have written on the subject of healing. A good on the start with is called “IT IS ALWAYS GOD'S WILL TO HEAL YOU!”, but for now let us continue with study to answer the question “Is the doctrine of transubstantiation a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching?”
So then, the summation of my reason #1 of why I myself do not believe in the Catholic man made doctrine of transubstantiation is that I do not believe that it is a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching of the WHOLE word of Almighty God as I have just shown to you.
Now I say that this doctrine of transubstantiation is a man made doctrine, because there is no CLEAR, PLAIN, and SIMPLE teaching of this doctrine of transubstantiation in the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible. You can talk about church TRADITION all you want, but if ANY church tradition does NOT AGREE whole with what the CLEAR word of TRUTH of Almighty God, the Holy Bible PLAINLY teaches, then it should NOT me taught as an ESSENTIAL teaching of the church, any church.
Please understand that I am NOT singling out the Catholic church alone to expose the ERRORS of INTERPRETATION that they have made to form these false teachings in the Catholic church. In fact I have written many studies exposing the errors of other churches long before I wrote any studies opposing the false teachings of the Catholic church.
You see, it was a question that my sister, who is yet it the Catholic church at the writing of this study I God's word, asked me in regards to what is the difference between the Catholic church and the Protestant churches that lead me to write this study and other studies as well that expose the ERRORS that are made by the Catholic church in their INTERPRETATION of the scriptures.
Please understand that this study in not an attack on my fellow brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who happened to be raised in the teachings and the traditions of the Catholic church. But rather this study will focus on only what the whole word of God teaches, which Christians, ALL Christians including Catholics, should esteem HIGHER and OVER what your specific denomination teaches.
As always I am here just to present to you, the reader and seeker of the truth, ALL the evidence that I have found from BOTH sides of the controversy over church doctrine, and then I leave it up to you the reader and seeker of the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God to decide for YOURSELF what to believe.
And yes, as always I do offer my OPINION that is based upon ALL the evidence that I have found by doing this IN DEPTH study in God's word, but again it is your choice at to how you want to believe. As long as you confess you faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior who died for your sins and that Jesus was raised form the dead, then I consider you to be my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ.
This brings us to reason #2 of why I personally do NOT believe in the false teaching of the Catholic church. Now from this point on this study may appear to some as being BIAS, because I do not hold back to say very boldly that this doctrine of Transubstantiation of the Catholic church is a FALSE teaching. So if you are NOT truly seeking the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God, then there is a good chance that you will be OFFENDED with the EVIDENCE that I present to you out of love. With that being said all those who are truly seeking the truth please continue with the following reasons, which I will number from this point on of why I do not agree with the TEACHING of the Catholic church on their doctrine of transubstantiation.
The second reason of why I do not believe in the false Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is that it not only does NOT AGREE with the whole word of God but it also CONTRADICTS other parts the very word of Almighty God.
You see, according to the Catholic church transubstantiation can only take place during the sacrifice of the mass where only the Catholic priests have the authority to change the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus. In other words, the OFFERING of the SACRIFICE of the mass where the Eucharist that is supposedly literally changed into the body of Jesus is BROKEN over and over again and again each time the so called “BLOODLESS” sacrifice of the mass is offered up to God is what CONTRADICTS many verses in the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible. It is this offering up of the broken body of Jesus again and again during the SACRIFICE of the mass that CONTRADICTS the clear, plain, and simple word of Almighty God.
Please read the following verses which clearly teach us that Jesus was the last and final sacrifice that was offered for the forgiveness of sins of the whole world ONCE and only ONCE and for all time NEVER to be offered again.
In John 19:30 just moments before Jesus died on the cross he said “It is FINISHED” meaning that he had done the whole WILL of his God and Father that was given of him by his Father to do. Jesus had learned OBEDIENCE, even the OBEDIENCE to SUFFER the shameful DEATH on the cross.
In Romans 6:9,10 we read that Jesus died just that ONE time and that Jesus shall NEVER DIE again.
10. For in that he died, he died unto sin ONCE: but in that he lives, he lives unto God.”
Then we read in Hebrews 7:24-28 teaches us that the priesthood of the Old Testament has been done away by Jesus becoming our ever continuing high priest in heaven that lives forever and continually make intercession for us before God.
28. For the law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the WORD of the oath, which was since the law (or that came after the law as a NEW COVENANT), makes the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”
Can you not see my dear brothers and sisters who are in the Catholic church that the priesthood now belongs to Jesus who is our high priest that has an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood where there is no longer the need to daily or weekly or monthly or yearly to OFFER up SACRIFICES, because he offered up himself ONCE for the sins of the whole world.
Then we read in Hebrews 9:1-12 where the Old Testament ceremonies were types and shadows signifying the coming high priest who would establish a NEW covenant or TESTAMENT between God and man with his very own blood that he shed ONCE and for all time never to be offered again for the sins of mankind.
“Then verily the FIRST COVENANT had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (but the NEW covenant made IN the BLOOD of Jesus has NO such carnal ORDINANCES for the remission of sins, because Jesus made the ATONEMENT for all the sins of the whole world ONCE and for ALL time)
8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the WAY into the holiest of all was NOT yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: (but NOW because of the shed blood of Jesus each and every believer can come BOLDLY right into the very throne of Almighty God to find grace in our time of need. There is no longer a NEED to go to a PRIEST to make an offering of sacrifice for you sins and go to God FOR you. Jesus made the WAY into the very presence of Almighty God that each and EVERY believer has been given that privilege to come before God without a priest and confess his or hers sins and be forgiven)
10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them UNTIL the time of reformation. (in other words, Almighty God sent his Son to REFORM the false TEAHCINGS of the Scribes and the Pharisees and to do away with all the ceremonies that were done by the PRIESTS in the Old Testament because they had ENDED with the death and resurrection of Jesus who has now become the only high priest that we need. The early church in the New Testament does NOT speak of any ceremonies that are performed only by a PRIEST. But rather the New Testament speaks of EVERY believer as being a PRIEST an of the ROYAL PRIESTHOOD of God)
Then we read in Hebrews 9:25-28 that Jesus was offer for our sin ONCE and that he will come again a second time to save those who are WITHOUT SIN.
Now it should be obvious that Jesus did NO SIN so of course Jesus with be coming again at his SECOND coming WITHOUT SIN, so there is absolutely no reason to apply these words “WITHOUT SIN” to be referring to Jesus, who every believers already knows is WITHOUT SIN. In other words, these words “WITHOUT SIN” are NOT referring to Jesus, but rather they are referring to those whom Jesus will becoming to REWARD with the END of our SALVATION, which is ETERNAL LIFE that will be granted to ONLY those good and faithful servants who are WITHOUT SIN at his coming.
Then we read in Hebrews 10:5-22 that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world ONCE and for ALL TIME ONCE and for ALL. And that Jesus has now become of high priest over the household of God showing us that there is no more need for PRIESTS to offer any type of SACRIFICES for any REASON.
“Wherefore when he comes into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body have you prepared me: (Jesus lived without sin by the power of the Holy Spirit that dwelt in him and then he died as an innocent lamb without spot or blemish of sin so that he could ATONE for the sins of the whole world so that WHOSOEVER of any person whatsoever in the whole world who BELIEVES on Jesus that he DIED for their sins can be forgiven and made PERFECT before God so that they could be FILLED with the Holy Spirit and be endued with power from on high to LIVE their lives ans a LIVNG SACRIFICE WITHOUT SIN through the power of the Holy Spirit that now dwells IN them because of the ONE sacrifice that Jesus offer for us ALL)
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do your WILL, O God. He takes AWAY the FIRST, that he may establish the second.(in other words, the Old Testament law of ordinances and priestly ceremonies were DONE AWAY for all time by the ONE sacrifice of Jesus)
11. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: (and if these repetitive sacrifices offered over and over in the Old Testament could NOT take away sin then what makes the Catholic church believe that the offering of the sacrifice of the mass repeatedly with take away sin? There is absolutely NO SOUND BIBLICAL evidence for the celebrating or the offering of the sacrifice of the mass and veneration of the Eucharist that was introduced into Christianity by the Catholic church)
20. By a NEW and LIVING WAY, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (the ONLY sacrifice that we are taught to offer in the New Testament is that we are to present our bodies as a LIVING SACRIFICE before God meaning that we are to CRUCIFY the lust of our flesh and live our lives without sin. In this LIVING sacrifice we offer God the fruit of our lips in thanksgiving and praise with is also called a sacrifice. And we ALL being called to be separate and a royal priesthood we all offer God spiritual sacrifices. Again these pleasing spiritual sacrifices are offered in our every day LIVING where we give to others and work the works of righteousness laying aside our own will. So again no where in the New Testament is there any mention of offering a sacrifice of the mass or having a priest hood that is over the laity.)
But the Catholic church directly CONTRADICTS all these clear, plain, and simple passages of scriptures that need absolutely no interpretation to understand. Now some of my dear brothers and sisters in the Catholic church may be thinking how does the Catholic church contradict the clear word of Almighty God? By the TRADITIONS of the church that ignore or try to explain away the clear word of God by double talk by saying things in their apologetic writings like the mass is NOT actually a sacrifice that is offered over and over again and again, but rather it is a CONTINUING sacrifice that Jesus offered.
Nothing but double talk. Something that is CONTINUING never stops, and each and ever mass has a stopping point and a beginning point. The offering of sacrifice of the mass is a REPETITIVE offering being offered over and over again and again. Here is how the Catholic church defines exactly what it means and intends the sacrifice of the mass to be. The following information is taken directly from the Catholic encyclopedia.
Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948).
Again the Bible teaches us that Jesus gave gifts unto men, ALL of us, where each and every believer has his or her own part of the body of Jesus Christ to minister to others.
Please read Ephesians 4:1-14 where we see absolutely no mention of any PRIESTS being given to the CHURCH for edification.
9. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (but absolutely no mention of any PRIESTS, Cardinals or popes. The Bible does speak of bishops, and deacons but a bishop is the same as pastors and deacons are in reality elders or mature Christians that help teach newer Christians in the faith.)
14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”
To ME, this whole concept of how the Catholic church worships and serves God is NOT found in the New Testament of the Bible. I am not saying that Catholic do not worship God and do good works of righteousness. I am just saying that their style or ceremony of worship for lack of a better word is patterned more off the Old Testament, than it is the NEW Testament, where a lot of the Old Testament has been fulfilled by Jesus and is no longer required in the New Testament.
#1. There is no teaching in the New Testament were PRIESTS are exalted over others believer where the priest ONLY can do things that the laity or just common believers have no authority to do. But rather the Bible teaches us that we ALL have been called to be the ROYAL priesthood of God.
#2. There is no teaching in the Newt Testament that ONLY the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes can properly INTERPRET the scriptures. But rather the Bible teaches us that we have no need that any man teach us because the anointing of the Holy Spirit that abides in us teaches us and will lead and guide us into all truth.
#3. There is no teaching in the New testament of any offering of the sacrifice of the mass. But rather we are ALL called to be a LIVING sacrifice laying aside our own will to do the will of Almighty God the Father.
#4. There is no teaching in the New Testament of praying the repetitive prayers of the Rosary. But rather Jesus teaches us NOT to pray as the heathen pray, because they THINK that they will be heard for the much speaking and this is not what catches the ear of Almighty God. The using of a string of beads to pray is a pagan practice that existed long before the beginning of the church. Again this is a study in and of itself, which I will eventual cover.
#5. There is no teaching in the New Testament that we are to pray for the dead. But rather the Bible leaves us with the urgency to preach the gospel to all the world, because once a person dies they have no hope of reward if they die while living in sin. Please read the study “IS PRAYING FOR THE DEAD BIBLICAL?”
#6. There is no teaching in the New Testament for the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. But rather the bible teaches us that there are only TWO destinations for mankind. Please read the study called “IS THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY A BIBLICAL TEACHING?”
#7. There is no New Testament teaching of Mary being a CO REDEMTRIX or a co mediator. But rather the Bible teaches us that there is but ONE mediator between God and man who is the man Jesus Christ.
#8. There is no New Testament teaching of Peter being the first POPE. But rather the Bible calls Peter an Apostle and a disciple of Jesus, where all the Apostle work together and none lord over the other. And none of the apostle were considered to be infallible. The bible also teaches us that we ALL are vicars of Christ where we ALL are representatives of Jesus Christ on the earth. We ALL have been given AUTHORITY to use the name of Jesus to cast out devils and heal the sick.
#9. There is no New Testament teaching of infant baptism. But rather every baptism in the new testament is that of an adult who confesses faith in Jesus Christ.
#10. There is no teaching in the New Testament where we are to confess our sins to a priest. But rather the Bible teaches us that we are to confess our sins to God and ask forgiveness and we are assured by the word of God that he is faithful and just to forgive us of all our sins and cleans us from all unrighteousness. The Bible does say that we are to confess our faults one to another, but this means that we are confiding on our brothers and sisters for help to overcome the areas in our lives that cause us to fall into sin. And yes the Bible doe teach us to reconcile and forgive one another when we have sinned against a brother or sister. But there is no CLEAR teaching that a believer has the authority to forgive any and all sins that are committed against other people. And even if this were true, depending on how one INTERPRETS those few vague verses, then forgiving sins would NOT be LIMITED to the ONLY the CLERGY, but rather EVERY believer would have this authority to forgive sins.
Now I have just listed 10 things here, but if I really sat down and thought some more on the teachings of the Catholic church I could easily expand this list to go on and on of why I have left the Catholic church and will never return to it's corrupt and unbiblical teachings, but this is not the focus of this particular study in God's word, which is to answer the question “Is the doctrine of transubstantiation a sound Biblical teaching?”. This bring us to reason #3 of why I reject the false teaching of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Here in reason number 3 we will take a closer look at what the Catholic definition of the word “TRANSUBSTANTIATION” means to the Catholic church, who WROTE this doctrine.
Now some of you, who are Catholic and have actually looked into this Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation for yourself in only the Catholic literature, then you may have been shaking your head thinking to yourself as you have been reading this study saying to yourself something like, “Mark you have no idea what your are talking about because you do not truly know what the WORD transubstantiation means. You see Mark, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation means that ONLY the SUBSTANCE of bread and wine is actually changed into ONLY the SUBSTANCE of the flesh and blood of Jesus and NOT the ACCIDENTS are changed.”
Oh but you see I do understand this DECEPTION of Satan the devil that DECEIVES so many of my dear brothers and sisters, who are in the Catholic church. Yes I understand fully that this word “transubstantiation” was specifically chosen by those in the Catholic church who wrote this man made doctrine, because by using this definition this man made so called miracle cannot be proven to be false, because there is NO PHYSICAL evidence to actually SEE, FEEL and TASTE to let us KNOW that a TRUE MIRACLE has indeed taken place.
Now for those of you that have not taken a look at the lawyer type language that the Catholic church writers of doctrine use in defining their doctrines. Then you may be thinking what is this little argument all about? What do you mean by the ACCIDENTS are NOT changed during the sacrifice of the mass? I thought SUBSTANCE meant the WHOLE thing was changed, So how does the Catholic church really DEFINE this teaching of transubstantiation? Let mean explain what I mean by what I just said here under reason #3 of why I reject the false teaching of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
First let me say that we all know that SCIENCE often CHANGES what it ONCE used to teach as FACT when new revelations in the scientific community come to light that scientifically prove that the OLD science was WRONG. I mean we all know that science ONCE believed and TAUGHT as FACT that the world was FLAT, but now we KNOW that that OLD science was WRONG so we NO LONGER teach that which is FALSE.
With that being said let us now take a look at some OLD science on which the Catholic church based it's definition of transubstantiation upon. You see my dear brothers and sisters, who are in the Catholic church, the Catholic definition of transubstantiation is based upon the OLD and now proven to be FALSE theoretical science of the Greek philosopher Aristotle who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC. Now again while it was excepted as “science” in that day these theories of Aristotle have long since been proven by modern science to be FALSE.
Let me explain what I mean. The Greek philosopher Aristotle claimed that ALL MATTER consists of TWO parts, which are number one the ACCIDENTS that represent the OUTER part of matter that we can SEE, FEEL, HEAR, SMELL and TASTE with our five physical senses. And then there is number 2 the INNER part of matter called SUBSTANCE, which cannot be seen, felt, heard, or TASTED.
So then, based upon this ancient and FALSE THEORY about all matter being made up of TWO parts where the inner part called the SUBSTANCE, which nobody can SEE so they would not KNOW if a CHANGE occurred of not, and where the outer part called the ACCIDENTS, which can be see so this part must be said NOT to change in order for the common people to believe in the man made miracle of the Catholic church, who invented the word “TRANSUBSTANTIATION”. Think this through for yourself, IF Almighty God was truly the author of this doctrine, then God would have KNOW that this OLD science would later be proven to be FALSE, but being a MAN MADE doctrine MAN had no way to know that the science of their day would one day be proven FALSE.
Now I personally believe that the Catholic church invented this word “transubstantiation” only AFTER their followers began to QUESTION some of their teachings, so that they could CONVINCE the common people to continue believe in their MAN MADE miracle that ONLY the priests and clergy could perform. Here is the Catholic definition of the word “transubstantiation”, and while you read it please notice the CONFUSING lawyer like double talk confusing language of the Catholic definition of transubstantiation, which the Catholic encyclopedia states as follows:
“In a closer logical analysis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and fundamental notion to be that of conversion, which may be defined as "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being". As is immediately evident, conversion (conversio) is something more than mere change (mutatio). Whereas in mere changes one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as, e.g., in the change of day and night, conversion requires two positive extremes, which are related to each other as thing to thing, and must have, besides, such an intimate connection with each other, that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to be only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases to be, as, e.g., in the conversion of water into wine at Cana. A third element is usually required, known as the commune tertium, which, even after conversion has taken place, either physically or at least logically unites one extreme to the other; for in every true conversion the following condition must be fulfilled: "What was formerly A, is now B." A very important question suggests itself as to whether the definition should further postulate the previous non-existence of the last extreme, for it seems strange that an existing terminus a quo, A, should be converted into an already existing terminus ad quem, B. If the act of conversion is not to become a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner newly exist, just as the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. Yet as the disappearance of the latter is not attributable to annihilation properly so called, so there is no need of postulating creation, strictly so called, to explain the former's coming into existence. The idea of conversion is amply realized if the following condition is fulfilled, viz., that a thing which already existed in substance, acquires an altogether new and previously non-existing mode of being. Thus in the resurrection of the dead, the dust of the human bodies will be truly converted into the bodies of the risen by their previously existing souls, just as at death they had been truly converted into corpses by the departure of the souls. This much as regards the general notion of conversion. Transubstantiation, however, is NOT a conversion simply so called, but a SUBSTANSIAL conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely ACCIDENTAL conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the SUBSTANCE is converted into another — the ACCIDENTS remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were MIRACULOUSLY converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.”
In more simple words the Catholic church is TRYING it's best to convince Catholics to believe and accept with blind faith that it would be a so called MIRACLE for wood to be converted into iron but it would still LOOK, FEEL and BURN just like any other piece of WOOD, because ONLY the SUBSTANCE INSIDE of the wood that cannot be seen is the ONLY part that supposedly changed to iron while that oust remained unchanged.
But what all this lawyer type language is actually saying is that at the point of consecration in the Mass, the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine change, while the ACCIDENTS remains the same. In other words it is only the INNER ESSENCE of bread and wine that are changed into the actual literal ESSENCE of the body of flesh and the shed blood of Jesus and the OUTWARD shape, form, and all the other outward physical characteristics of the bread and wine REMAIN unchanged.
Now that is NOT a TRUE BIBLICAL MIRACLE as we see clearly see miracles done by Almighty God in the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible. I mean THINK this through for yourself my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, this MAN MADE contrived theorized HALF miracle of transubstantiation would be like saying that the TRUE MIRACLE of Jesus CHANGING the WATER into WINE is just a mere conversion and NOT a TRUE TRANSUBSTANTIATION where ONLY the SUBSTANCE is changed and NOT the ACCIDENTS are changed.
I am so relieved to know that Jesus does ONLY TRUE MIRACLES and when Jesus changes something MIRACULOUSLY he leaves NO DOUBT that a CHANDE has indeed taken place. I mean think about this for a moment. IF Jesus would have supposedly performed a so called miracle of “transubstantiation” changing the water into wine, then the disciples would have been stumbling all over themselves with deceptive lawyer type language trying to convince the quests at the marriage feast in Can that they were NOT drinking water, but they were actually drinking WINE even though what they were drinking LOOKED like WATER, TASTED like WATER, and smelled nor tasted nothing like WINE. But yet they would have persisted to say you do NOT understand the MIRACLE of “transubstantiation”, because if you did truly understand what the miracle of transubstantiation means, then you would BELIEVE that you are truly drinking WINE even though all your physical sense tell you that it is WATER. You just have to BELIEVE and then it will be so.
In other words Catholic are dogmatically TAUGHT that you just have to ACCEPT this MIRACLE as a MYSTERY and just TRUST this Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation knowing that the INNER part of what you cannot perceive has been changed and the outer part that you can perceive with your natural senses to be just bread and wine has remained unchanged. You see in ESSENCE and SUBSTANCE only has the bred and wine been changed into the body of flesh and the literal shed blood of Jesus. This is a MYSTERY that you just have to ACCEPT and if you do NOT believe this INFALLIBLE teaching of the Catholic church, then you shall be ANATHEMA , cursed with a curse by God and or excommunicated from the Catholic church apart from which you cannot be saved.
This brings us to reason #4 of why I personally am consider ACCURSED by the supposed authority of the Roman Catholic church, because I REJECT this doctrine of devils that the Catholic Church dogmatically demands Catholics to believe as an ESSENTIAL for them to be saved and receive eternal life in the world to come. Not that one has to partake of communion, but rather one has to BELIEVE in this Catholic doctrine.
Here in reason number 4 we will cover that FEAR factor that is used by the Catholic church to try and keep Catholics from QUESTIONING the teachings of the Catholic church. It is this lording over God's people with FEAR that is part of the reason why I left the Catholic church.
Let me begin by saying that I was TAUGHT in catechism class it the Catholic school by the nuns and the priest NEVER to QUESTION what I was taught. Now you being a Catholic may say that YOU were never taught such a thing as to NOT ever QUESTION that things that your were taught in the Catholic faith and that may be true for YOU. But God as my witness I KNOW what I myself was taught by the nuns and the priests in the Catholic church. You were NOT there so you have no right to falsely accuse me of lying.
I was also taught in the Catholic church that if I ever left the Catholic church, then I would be committing a MORTAL sin, which would send me straight to HELL if I did not repent and come back to the Catholic church. Going to another church was NOT an option. I was taught that if I left the Catholic church and did not come BACK to the CATHOLIC church, then I would be forever lost and go to HELL. In other words, I was taught that the Catholic church was the ONE TRUE church apart from which there is NO salvation. These things were drilled so deep into me with FEAR that when I began to seek the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING but the TRUTH, and saw the TRUTH that salvation comes by FAITH in Jesus Christ alone I had to FIGHT these FEARS of leaving the Catholic church day and night for weeks, because the FEAR was so ingrained in me that if I ever left the catholic church I would go straight to HELL. I had to make a CHOICE. Do I believe the teachings of the Catholic church OVER what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, is clearly teaching me? Finally I made a firm decision to trust God's WORD over my fear of what I had been taught in the Catholic church.
Long story made short I choice from that time forward to believe the BIBLE over the teaching of ANY CHURCH that does NOT AGREE with what the whole word of God teaches.
I know how hard it is to overcome the FEAR that not only the catholic church instills in their followers, but also this tactic of FEAR can be seen in most every church denomination that teaches FALSE doctrine, but yet that particular denomination dogmatically demands is the truth and therefore they make the CLAIM that they alone are the ONE TRUE church so therefore if you do not belong to their church, then you cannot be saved. I deal with these other denominations and their CLAIMS to be the ONE TRUE church in order to produce FEAR in the followers to remain faithful to their false teachings when they begin to QUESTION what they are being taught in some of my other studies under the heading of FALSE TEACHINGS. But for now I want to focus on these tactics of using FEAR to control the laity and even those in the clergy who might QUESTION the teachings of the Catholic church.
With that being said let us read the again the ANATHEMA that is placed upon all who DARE deny this ESSENTIAL doctrine of transubstantiation of the Catholic church. Here it is again straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:
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” (Session XIII, chapter IV)
Now as well, there is also an abiding curse (anathema) placed upon all Christians who deny this doctrine by the authority of the Catholic church:
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. (Session XII, Canon I)
This English word “anathema” is used just one time in the Bible, but this word “Anathema” is used many times by the Catholic church in order to produce FEAR in Catholics so that they will NOT QUESTION the authority and so called infallible teachings of the Catholic church. The one time this word “anathema” is used in the Bible is in 1 Corinthians 16:22 and other times it is translated as accursed or to bind under a great curse as in being cursed with a curse.
Basically this verse is saying that any who do love the Lord at his coming, then let them be accursed. It would be like saying I know that the judgment of God is coming and I do not want it to come yet because some people I know are not saved yet, but even so COME Lord Jesus, even if it means that they shall be lost because they do not love you.
However, the Catholic Church uses anathema as a deliberate FEAR tactic to produce fear in the followers of the catholic church to NOT QUESTION the teachings of the Catholic church. In other words, the Catholic church says of themselves that they are the ONE TRUE church and if any one dares to question what the Catholic church teaches, then let that person be anathema or accursed on the day of judgment in order to produce FEAR into their followers so that Catholics would not question the teaching of the Catholic church.
Then if this anathema of FEAR of being cursed did not keep their followers in line the Catholic church would excommunicate those who rejected the teachings of the Catholic church. Excommunication denied the taking of communion to the person who was excommunication and in every respect anyone who is excommunicated from the Catholic church is considered to no longer be a Christian. The Catholic church doctrine teaches that communion is ESSENTIAL to salvation so in the mind of a Catholic being excommunicated was a ticket straight to HELL, which is another FEAR tactic. Now this is not to say that using fear of God's judgment is wrong, because in the right understanding this fear of the day of judgment is indeed Biblical. Bit to use FALS teaching to keep Christians in line so to speak is completely not Biblical. Please read the studies called “IS THE DOCTRINE OF HELL BIBLICAL?” and “DOES REVELATION 20:10 TEACH ETERNAL TORMENT?” for true sound Biblical teaching on what actually happens to the wicked on the day of judgment.
Also to be officially excommunicated from the Catholic church the Pope would send a “BULL” letter or a Papal Bull, which was a formal document from the Pope used for many kinds of serious natters of the Catholic church. The term “BULL” comes from the word “BULLAE”, which is a clay SEAL to prevent someone tampering with the letter. I thought it interesting to use the term “BULL”, because to me two things came to mind, when I saw this word while doing my research. First when a Papal BULL is used in connection with excommunication it makes me think of a BULLY who is BULLYING someone who is considered weaker. Secondly to a true Christian who knows that what they are defending is the true gospel pf Jesus Christ, then any Papal BULL is just that and nothing more than a bunch of BULL to THEM personally, so therefore a Papal BULL letter of excommunication means absolutely nothing to the Christian who truly believes that they are defending the true gospel of Jesus Christ by exposing the false teachings of the Catholic church.
Then if the FEAR of being excommunicated from the Catholic church did not silence the Christians who were speaking out against the false and unbiblical teachings of the Catholic church the next step would be to exile them or to torture and even brutally killed those who denied the teachings of the Catholic church to be infallible.
All that any Catholic, who is truly seeking the truth of the whole word of Almighty God, needs to do in order to see which side is following the teaching of Jesus more closely is to take an honest and close look at ALL the evidence from BOTH sides of the history of the church. Now when you do this you will see that abuses against the very word of TRUTH happened on BOTH sides. But for ME, what really stands out and lets ME personally know deep down inside which side seemed to operate MORE from the influence of the god of this world was the side that obeyed the influence of Satan to use genocide to try and exterminate those who opposed their INTERPRETATION of the scriptures. Yes their were killing done by BOTH sides, but only the Catholic church issued orders from the Pope to EXTERMINATE those who OPPOSED the TEACHINGS of the Catholic church.
So then, when you truly and honestly take an unbiased look at the history of BOTH sides you will find that the Catholic church used genocide killing the entire families and villages of those who interpreted the scriptures differently than the Catholic church. And then when their seemed to be no other option than to fight back in self defense of their own lives and the very survival of what these Christians who were being literally wipe off the face of the earth and truly believed that they were teaching the truth they took up arms and went to war against the Catholic soldiers of the inquisition.
Here is just a small portion of what took place against true born again Christians who interpreted SOME of the scriptures differently than the self exalted Catholic church who taught that they ALONE could properly interpret the scripture and that they were INFALLIBLE.
Please consider the following history of the persecution of those faithful Christians who in the beginning gladly laid down their lives for the gospel of Jesus Christ who were being brutally martyred for the sole reason that they would not bow their knee to the FALSE teachings of the organization of the self exalted Catholic church. I believe this follow history of the church to be from an UNBIASED source. Here is a link to that source if you wish to investigate deeper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians. And the following is just a small part of what I have used from this source to show you the reader and seeker of the TRUTH the Satanic side of the history of the Catholic church that sought to EXTERMINATE those who rejected that teachings of the Catholic church. The emphasis added is mine.
In 1487 Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull for the EXTERMINATION of the Vaudois. Alberto de' Capitanei, archdeacon of Cremona, responded to the bull by organizing a crusade to complete the process (of EXTERMINATION of those who opposed the teachings of the Catholic church) and launched an offensive in the provinces of Dauphine and Piedmont. Charles I, Duke of Savoy, eventually interfered to save his territories from further confusion and promised the Vaudois peace. But the offensive had devastated the area, and many of the Vaudois fled to Provence and to southern Italy.
It was only after many Christians and innocent families who brutally slaughtered that Charles the I sent aid to stop the bloodshed using force after peace could not be established any other way. Now some may be saying, “Slaughtered”, isn't that a rather strong word to describe what really happened? Well if all you read is just the BIAS side of the Catholic church one may say that the Catholic church brutally slaughtered Christians is going a bit too far. But if you truly and honestly consider the evidence from BOTH sides you may change your preconceived views of the history of the Catholic church. So please truly and honestly consider the following HISTORY of what actually took place according to the UNBIASED source that I gave you the link to check out for yourself. This following potion is found under the heading “The Piedmont Easter”.
The Catholic forces did not simply slaughter the inhabitants. They are reported to have unleashed an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. According to one report by a Peter Liegé:
Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die.
This massacre became known as the Piedmont Easter. An estimate of some 1,700 Waldensians were slaughtered; the massacre was so brutal it aroused indignation throughout Europe. Protestant rulers in northern Europe offered sanctuary to the remaining Waldensians.
We could bring to light many other such persecutions against other groups of Christians by the Catholic church, but I would hope that just this one brutal massacre to try and EXTERMINATE an entire people just because they did NOT agree with the FALSE teaching of the Catholic church should be enough for any Catholic, who is truly seeking the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God, to take a closer look at ALL the teachings of the Catholic church in the LIGHT of the whole word of God. I will be posting many other teachings that expose the ERRORS of INTERPRETATION that the Catholic church has made in forming their man made doctrines that they exalt ABOVE the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, by saying that they hold church TRADITION equal to that of the word of Almighty God. Did not the Jews, who God rejected by not listening to the teaching of Jesus, do the very same thing? Yes they did. The Jew made void the very word of God BY their TRADITIONS!
Please read Mark 7:13, where Jesus is rebuking the religious leaders for their TRADITIONS making void the very word of God.
Now some Catholics will argue and say that the Catholic church is the ONLY church that can trance it's roots all the way back to the Apostles of Jesus Christ saying that the Apostle Peter was the very first POPE.
Well of course your specific denomination will tell you that they are the ONE and ONLY TRUE church and that they are the ONLY church that can trance their roots all the way back to the early church and the very Apostles of Jesus Christ. But what does that prove? I mean really what does that prove to another church that says the very same thing about their own specific denomination? You see my dear brothers and sisters who are in the Catholic church or any other church for that matter, any church proclaiming to be the ONE and ONLY TRUE church means nothing, because almost every church denomination makes this very same boast about themselves even if they do not come right out and say it openly.
So then, to me personally this boast of supposedly being the ONE and ONLY TRUE church, and who SAY that can supposedly trance their roots all the way back to the Apostles of Jesus means nothing special to single out yourself as being the ONE and ONLY TRUE church to be the ONLY church that has traced their roots all the way back to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, because other churches make this very same claim. And then they IMPLY just because they are able to trace their roots all the way back to the Apostle that this therefore means without fail that ALL their doctrine is INFALLIBLE and cannot possibly be in ERROR in any way shape or form.
Let me set the record straight for you. Even the very Apostles of Jesus Christ who none will argue that they were indeed the part of ONE TRUE church of Jesus Christ dealt with FALSE teaching WITHIN the CHURCH. So then, just being able too SAY that you are the ONE and ONLY TRUE church that make the CLAIM that you ALONE can trance your roots all the way back to the Apostles means absolutely nothing WHEN you do this in order to imply that therefore this church genealogy proves and dogmatically means without fall that ALL your TEACHINGS are without any error whatsoever based upon church TRADITIONS.
That would be like saying that those who were indeed part of the ONE TRUE early church who taught strict Judaism to the letter and dogmatically demanded that CIRCUMCISION was an ESSENTIAL doctrine for salvation were heretics and therefore they should be EXTERMINATED. Did the Apostles try and EXTERMINATE these Jews who believed upon Jesus Christ as their Messiah, who because of their TRADITIONS were blinded to the the TRUTH of the gospel o Jesus Christ? No they did NOT, but rather the Holy Spirit gave them wisdom to patiently teach them and persuade them of their errors in INTERPRETING the scripture. You see, it is only the spirit of SATAN that alone seeks to EXTEMINATE God's people. People like Hitler who tried to exterminate God's people where not being led by the Holy Spirit of Almighty God, but rather they were being influence and led by Satan. The Spirit of God teaches us to live peaceably with ALL of mankind and especially those of the household of faith.
Even the very Apostles of Jesus were DIVIDED on some issues for awhile, because the very first Christians were the JEWS who were NOT being TAUGHT the whole word of God and they had merged even some pagan thoughts into their TRADITIONS which made their worship of God to be in VAIN. But eventually through communication and the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit into all truth they settled their differences NOT by TRADITION, but rather by the SCRIPTURES and their firm rock solid belief that Jesus was indeed THAT CHRIST, the SON of the one true and only Almighty living God who DIED for their sins and then was raised from the dead after three days.
This is the CORE CENTRAL and really the ONLY ESSENTIAL doctrine that ANY church should have a a dogmatic doctrine. Paul WARNED believers to take HEED HOW we build upon this FOUNDATION of TRUTH of Jesus Christ being the MESSIAH. I mean we you read the book of the ACTS of the Apostles you see that they teach REPENTANCE, which is the turning away from sin and turn to God. They preached Jesus as the only name under heaven given among mankind where man MUST be saved.
And in this preaching they teach through the writing of the Gospels and the letters to the churches that Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world so that WHOSOEVER of whatever person on the earth who BELIEVES on the name of Jesus Christ will be saved IN THAT, those who BELIEVE and confess their sinful ways to repent will be forgiven of ALL their past sin and place into a right relationship with Almighty God.
The apostles also taught for believers who confessed that Jesus died for their sins and that God raised him from the dead to be follow on in their faith and be baptized in water as a part of their confession of faith that they BELIEVE in Jesus Christ.
The apostles also taught believers to be FILLED with the Holy Spirit of Almighty God. But the core CENTRAL belief of the ONE TRUE early church was the FOUNDATION of Jesus Christ and being the ONLY WAY to obtain eternal life in the world to come. And no where in the New Testament do we read that the EARLY church ever persecuted or tried to EXTERMINATE those who OPPOSED their teachings, but rather THEY were the ones who were persecuted and MARTYRED for OPPOSING the TRADITIONS of the RELIGIOUS people of that day.
So I ask you my dear brothers and sisters, who are in the Catholic church, WHO killed WHO in the history of the church? And WHO fled the brutal persecution by the Catholic church simply because they interpreted that scriptures differently and therefore they could not AGREE with what the Catholic church taught is SOME areas that the Catholic church dogmatically DEMANDED it's followers to be believe or ELSE.
So then, as reason #4 of why I do NOT believe in the FALSE teaching of transubstantiation, is the FEAR tactic used by the Catholic church used to keep Catholics from QUESTIONING their TEACHINGS, which lead to the persecution and slaughter of innocent Christians who opposed the TEACHING of the catholic church and were crying out for the REFORMING or the REWORDING of the way these doctrines were written and taught. And one such FASLE teaching that the Waldensians opposed was the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation or the “real presence” of Jesus Christ in literal flesh and blood in communion and they were willing to lay down their very lives for what they believed to be the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. There were many other groups of Christians who did not agree with every thing that the Waldensians taught who also opposed this unbiblical teaching of transubstantiation and they too were persecuted by the Catholic church.
It seemed that this Satanic spirit of persecution God's people was only in the Catholic church until it spilled over into John Calvin, who was once a priest in the Catholic church that opposed SOME of the teachings of the Catholic church, but then joined the call for reformation in the Catholic by aligning with other Christians who were also calling for reform in the Catholic church. You see later on John Calvin gathered quite a few followers to himself and then developed that same prideful attitude that he ALONE had the truth which eventually lead him to murder a dear brother in the Lord who simply opposed what John Calvin himself taught. So to ME, one of the things that I look for to determine false teaching is WHO killed WHO. In other words, which side had the Satanic spirit that influenced them to try and EXTERMINATE any one who OPPOSED them?
This brings us to reason #5 of why I personally do not believe in the FALSE teaching of the Catholic church in their doctrine of transubstantiation.
Here in reason number 5 of why I do not agree with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation we will take a closer look at the gradual DEVELOPMENT of this Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which was held onto after the reformation by the Orthodox church that today still contends with the Catholic church as to exactly WHEN this supposed OLD science change of substance only and not the accidents actually takes place. A very trivial argument to ME, but none the less it seems to have been a big issue between Catholics and the strict Orthodox church at least in the past anyway.
Now since studying HISTORY can be quite boring to some. I will make this section under reason #5 more of a summary and then in reason #6 I will go more in depth explaining the writings of the early church fathers, because they too have been incorrectly interpreted by being taken out of context.
So then, let us begin by making some statements of FACTS, which you can verify if you so desire by doing your own research in the Catholic encyclopedia or just type in some key words in the search bar like Fourth Lateral Council and transubstantiation and you will fined the following FACTS.
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation did not actually come to be an OFFICIAL dogma UNTIL 1215 AD when Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council wrote it into the dogma of the Catholic church.
Now I am not sure exactly HOW the elements of bread and wine were given to the laity at that point in time, but we do know for sure that in 1415 that an apparent CHANGE had been made in this doctrine of transubstantiation, which raises the question is or is not the dogma's of the popes INFALLIBLE and without error, because IF the are, then they should NOT be changed ever? Anyway this brings us to fact #2 that an apparent CHANGE was made after this doctrine became an OFFICIAL doctrine by Pope Innocent III 200 years earlier.
In 1415 at the Council of Constance it was decreed that ONLY the bread should be administered to the people and that the priest ONLY should drink the wine in behalf of the people.
Now this new practice that was DECREED by the Catholic church that CLAIMS that they are infallible and WITHOUT ERROR is directly contrary to the word for TRUTH, the Holy Bible. Can you not see my dear brothers and sisters who are in the Catholic church, that Jesus HIMSELF said to his disciples to take of the cup and drink ALL of you? Please read again Mark 14:2-23 which clearly teaches us that ALL the disciples drank from the cup of wine.
23. And he took the CUP, and when he had given thanks, he GAVE IT to THEM: and THEY ALL drank of it.”
We can see that the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup of wine in remembrance of the broken body and the shedding of blood that Jesus suffered for us was done in this same MANNER throughout the New testament and even through the first 300 years of the church after the last Apostle died. More on the HISTORY of the early church under reason #6, but here in this section I want you to see that not only the doctrine or transubstantiation itself is not a sound biblical teaching, but also that the practice of HOW this doctrine is observed is in direct CONTRADICTION of the very word of Almighty God.
Please read 1 Corinthians 11:18-31, which again clearly teaches us that ALL believers partook of BOTH the element of bread by first BREAKING the bread in REMEMBRANCE of our Lord's BROKEN or beaten body with the STRIPES that he bore for the HEALING of our physical bodies AND element of the cup of WINE was given to ALL the believers to share a drink until the whole cup was consumed.
19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (in other words Paul is saying that first of all he knows that there are DIVISION and sects in the church and that those teaching these false doctrines or heresies do so to be seen of men. Now the false teaching that Paul is specifically addressing here in this passage of scripture deals more with the false teaching that some were spreading which caused division in the church was that communion should be observed by having an actual MEAL like Jesus did at the last supper. But Paul clears this false teaching up in the verse that follow.)
22. What? Have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (clearly you can see that Paul is NOT pleased with this practice of eating the Lord's supper as a MEAL. His main concern is abuse saying that some are drinking too much wine and getting drunk, and that some who are more blessed than others have brought huge portions of food to the church assembly while others who are less fortunate go hungry while others gorge themselves. I mean I can see how upset Paul was at this type of practice of observing the breaking of bread and the drinking from the cup of wine treatin it as a COMMON meal)
23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you (basically Paul is saying that I already told you once exactly as to HOW you are to take communion. I received these instruction directly from the Lord so pay close attention while I explain it to you again!), That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was BETRAYED took bread:
25. After the same manner ALSO he took the CUP, when he had supped (or after Jesus himself first drank from the cup of wine after he blessed it and gave thanks), saying, This cup IS the new testament IN my blood: this DO you, as often as you DRINK it, in REMEMBRANCE of me. (or in other words, Jesus is saying that in this same way that you ALL brake the bread and share the broken pieces among yourselves I want you ALSO to give THANKS for the CUP that I bore FOR YOU and then pass the cup around and SHARE a drink from the cup of wine in REMEMBRANCE of the blood that I shed FOR your sins to be forgiven. And as OFTEN as you take communion in this way you show with a pure heart of THANKSGIVING that you REMEMBER my suffering that I bore FOR YOU.)
26. For as often as you eat this bread, AND drink this cup, you do shew the Lord's death till he come. (in other words, BOTH the element of bread AND wine must be taken t properly show the Lord's DEATH, because God want us to SEE the distinction take he has made between the TWO, which is that the BROKEN bread is FOR the HEALING of our physical bodies NOW in this PRESENT world, AND the cup of wine we share is FOR the forgiveness of sin so that we can obtain ETERNAL LIFE in the world to come.)
27. Wherefore (or for this very reason of NOT understanding the TWO parts of the suffering of Jesus that he bore for US who BELIEVE.) whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (in other words, this is NOT a common meal as some have so LIGHTLY have taken it to be, but rather communion is a SERIOUS time of examining ourselves to see if we are walking in righteousness as we are commanded to do)
28. But let a man examine himself, (there is absolutely no need to go to a priest to ask forgiveness of any sins you may have, just examine you heart and God will tell you if he is displease with you in any way. If you find that your heart condemns you, the repent and ask forgiveness and God is faithful and just to forgiven you of ALL your sine and CLEANSE you from ALL unrighteousness so that you can now partake of communion) and so let him eat of that bread, AND drink of that cup.
29. For he that eats AND drinks unworthily, eats AND drinks damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING the Lord's body. (most every Christian discern or understand that Jesus shed his blood for the forgiven of sins so that we can partake of eternal life in the world to come, but not so many Christians TRULY understand that the BODY of Jesus was brutally beat with many stripes FOR our physical HEALING of our bodies in this PRESENT world.)
30. For this CAUSE (or for this very REASON of some NOT properly DISCERNING of truly UNDERSTANDING that the Lord's body bore those stripes FOR their HELAING of their physical bodies that) many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (or die prematurely).
The main point right now that we are looking at is that Jesus himself instituted that we ALL partake of BOTH the broken bread AND to share the the cup of wine, which CLEARLY shows that the Catholic manner of communion is NOT a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching and therefore the Popes are NOT INFALLIBLE in their INTERPRETING of the scriptures and writing church doctrine.
All one needs to do is compare the manner in which communion is observed in the Catholic church to the manner in which the disciples in the New Testament observed communion and you will clearly see that the offering of the sacrifice of the mass and taking communion in the Catholic church does NOT AGREE with what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible teaches us.
In the Catholic church during mass the priest takes the host or the eucharist, which is a compressed wafer of bread and then he breaks the wafer of bread after lifting it up and blessing it repeating the words of Jesus, This is my body, and the he eats both pieces of bread. Then the priest blessed the cup of wine repeating the words of Jesus this cup is the New Testament in my blood or This is my blood and the priest ONLY drinks the cup of wine. Then the priest or no a days a common lay person takes a platter of small wafers of compressed bread and places a wafer on the tongue of each person receiving communion, which is every Catholic who is present at the mass. It is like a mandatory obligation, but not necessarily a sin if a Catholic does not take communion at every mass.
My point is this. The Catholic mass does not agree with the early church way of coming together to partake of the breaking of bread and drinking from the cup of wine in remembrance of the suffering of Jesus. The early church broke bread from house to house. No mention of any altar, no mention of any priest, no mention of any celebrating or offering the sacrifice of the mass, just common lay Christians partaking of communion of the elements of bread and wine as SYMBOLS taken in REMEMBRANCE of the BROKEN body of Jesus and the blood he shed that Jesus suffered for the atonement of their sins.
Now there are a couple of verses where we find the breaking of bread and there is no mention of wine, but there is a mentioning that they continued stead fast in the TEACHINGS of the apostles and we already discussed where Paul had to remind some of what they were TAUGHT in the BEGINNING and that what some where doing was NOT what they had been taught at the first. The point being you cannot take these few verse out from apart of the WHOLE word of God and say that there is no need for the common lay people to take the wine any more.
Anyway it can be clearly seen in the early church writings that for the first 200 to almost 300 years that the early church believers used BOTH the bread and the wine as SYMBOLS that were blessed by the giving of thanks in REMEMBRANCE of the suffering and death of Jesus. We will look at some of these quotes under reason #6, but for now let us take a look at fact #3.
It was not until AFTER the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that clear language began to appear in SOME of the writings of the Catholic church.
So then, up to 325 AD after the council of Nicaea meet the language of most of these first and second century writings spoke of the elements of bread and wine as SYMBOLS. And the AFTER this church council the language started to change more and more until finally in 1215AD the Catholic doctrine was made an OFFICIAL dogma by Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, but then was later changed or amended in 1415 AD at the Council of Constance to where ONLY the priest partook of the wine and the laity partook of ONLY the bread without the wine.
So just a summary there has basically been division about how communion is to be taken even in the New Testament, but the error under discussion at that time of church history was over eating a full meal at communion to relive so to speak the whole passover meal. Paul clears this false teaching up and set the record straight as to how we are to observe communion. Then for the first 200 year every thing seems fine in respect to communion except for the Gnostics that falsely taught that Jesus did NOT truly come in the form of literal flesh. We will discuss this in the next section. Then for the next 100 years divisions began to crop up with several different thoughts of the deity of Jesus and basically some real big divisions began to grow. Part of these differences did involve communion and that the bread and wine were NOT just mere symbols, but that some kind of real presence of Jesus was present at communion. Slowly this real presence of Jesus began to change into the doctrine of “Real Presence”, which taught the Jesus was present in his literal flesh and his literal blood. This is when the CONTROVERSY began to get heated. Then Constantine called together the council at Nicaea for the church to settle their arguments. From this point on most of the writings in or about the church are Catholic bias in nature, until the time of the Protestant reformation in the 16th century.
However just because most of the writings during the middle ages that REMAINED to today where Catholic bias in nature does NOT mean that there were not other groups of true believers who OPPSSED the teaching of the Catholic church and NEVER considered themselves to be a part of the Catholic church. Also keep in mind that even withing the Catholic church itself there were priests, monks, Bishops, and even a pope or two that did not AGREE with all the teachings of the Catholic church. Again we will discuss some of this in the next section under the heading of reason # 6 of why I personally do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Here is reason number 6 we will be look primarily at what the early church believers wrote as to what they believed and practiced in relation to the taking of communion. In other words, do we find any shred of evidence to support the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in their writings. OR do we find that they indeed viewed the elements of bread and wine of communion as SYMBOLS?
Here are some of the early writings given in chronological order from the earliest to the latest or close to it anyway.
Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks."16
An allusion is an implication of something that might be the case, but it is not specifically stated. So Justin Martyr is saying that Christian take communion in REMEMBRANCE that the Word was made FLESH and that Jesus suffered and died for us as a human being. There is no hint here of the bread and wine being CHANGED, but rather they are symbols to be taken in REMEMBRANCE of what Jesus did for us.
Tatian (110-172 AD)
"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as FALSE witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."17Titian comes straight out and blatantly states that it is NOT we a Christians who eat human FLESH basically alluding to the pagans who did eat flesh in sacrifice to their false gods. So it may be that these false accusation arose due to the pagans MISUNDERSTANDING the words of Jesus, This is my BODY as Christians actually believing that they were eating bread that had been changed into human flesh of Jesus. But Titian set these pagans straight by clearly stating that it is NOT we Christians who eat human FLESH. Then he goes on to say that anyone among you who assert such an idea have been deceived by a FALSE witness. So CLEARLY this early church believer and teacher of God's word did NOT believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In fact there is no evidence that any such teaching even existed as yet.
Theophilus of Antioch (115-181 AD)
"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh."19
Basically Theophilus is saying that there should be no need to refute these who say that we as Christians eat FLESH, but I can see that some of you are DOUBTING the word of TRUTH. Why are you moved by fools and senseless men who say such things. They have godless lips that speak FALSELY about us as Christians, but the MOST IMPIOUS and barbarous of ALL is that they falsely accuse us of eating FLESH. So clearly Theophilus did NOT believe of teach that the bread and wine was CHANGED into the literal substance of the FLESH of Jesus. He believes as the disciples of Jesus that the bread and wine were SYMBOLS taken in REMEMBRANCE of our Lord's death. At first it seems like he is thinking HOW can anyone believe such a false teaching, then he realizes that some are indeed having doubts, because of what others are saying so he sets the record straight by rebuking and condemning this false doctrine of transubstantiation. So here we begin to see a vague starting of this idea or real presence in the elements of communion by SOME, but we also see that it was quickly refuted.
Irenaeus (120 - 200 AD)
"Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."20
Now the argument that Irenaeus is refuting is against those who are falsely teaching that our bodies of flesh will not be resurrected, but rather our bodies of flesh will go to corruption. He open by saying, HOW can THEY say such a thing that we have no hope of a resurrection when Jesus said if we be partakers of his flesh we shall obtain eternal life. So the issue here is not an argument of the elements being change or not change, but rather or not our bodies of flesh with be RESURRECTED. We do see however that Irenaeus believed that the eucharist, which means the giving of THANKS has two realities that we are giving THANKS for and they are for our earthly food that nourishes of physical bodies and for our heavenly spiritual food that nourishes us to obtain eternal life in the world to come. So then Ireneaus in my opinion more support the BIBLICAL teaching of communion where the elements are viewed as SYMBOLS that we take with a heart of THANKSGIVING knowing that God feeds us both physically and spiritually. Again I see no evidence here to support the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Tertullian (145-220 AD)
"Come now, when you read in the words of David, how that 'the Lord reigneth from the tree,' I want to know what you understand by it. Perhaps you think some wooden king of the Jews is meant!--and not Christ, who overcame death by His suffering on the cross, and thence reigned! Now, although death reigned from Adam even to Christ, why may not Christ be said to have reigned from the tree, from His having shut up the kingdom of death by dying upon the tree of His cross? This tree it is which Jeremiah likewise gives you intimation of, when he prophesies to the Jews, who should say, 'Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit, (the bread) thereof,' that is, His body. For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery."21
Tertullian definitely refutes the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation by clearly stating that the BODY of Jesus is a FIGURE of the bread. Tertullian goes on to argue against literal interpretations of several passages. Here is one such passage.
"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; 'and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'-meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."22
Here Tertullian clears up any misconceptions that some might be tempted to entertain about his position on the true nature of the element of bread and wine of communion. Tertullian is clearly teaching us the SPIRITUAL truth of HOW we EAT Jesus, which is to DEVOUR him with our EAR. In other words, we eat spiritual food by HEARING the WORDS or the TEACHINGS of Jesus. We RUMINATE on him with UNDERSTANDING. This word “ruminate”means chewing the cud over and over. In other words we are to MEDITATE on the words of Jesus to come to the knowledge of the truth. And we are to DIGEST Jesus by FAITH. Not that we are to believe that the bread and wine actually change into the physical literal body and blood of Jesus, but rather we are to BELIEVE God's word which will STRENGTHEN us spiritual to over come the enemy and obtain eternal life in the world to come. Tertullian points out the WORDS of Jesus that we are to BELIEVE of DIGEST by FAITH. 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' So in no way do I see these words of Tertullian supporting the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation that did not become and OFFICIAL dogma of the Catholic church until almost 1000 years later.
Clement of Alexandria (153-217 AD)
"And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh."23
So Clement is saying that as the blood gives life to the physical body so does the Word quicken us by the Spirit to bring us to be partakers of the Lord's immortality. Again we see the early church believers teaching of a two fold meaning of taking communion. But once again I see no clear plain and simple evidence in any of these writings to support the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Clement goes on to write.
"And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by SYMBOLS, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by METAPHOR the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."24
Can you not see my dear brothers and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, that these early church writers of church doctrine did NOT believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which again did not come to be fully accepted by the catholic church to be made dogma until almost a 1000 years later. Clement makes it very clear that Jesus was speaking symbolically of the bread and wine being SYMBOLS or METAPHORS of his body and blood.
Cyprian (200 AD)
Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the wine is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:
""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture."Tertullian and Cyprian both speak with precision to distinguish that the element are symbols for what they represent. The bread is a "figure" of the body.
Eusebius (260-341 AD)
"And there was one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the Deity. Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the Church observed, here with the singing of psalms and with the reading of the words committed to us by God, and there with the performance of divine and mystic services; and the mysterious SYMBOLS of the Saviour's passion were dispensed. At the same time people of every age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor unto God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly."25
Eusebius here plainly states that the saviors passion referring to to element of communion were SYMBOLS, which is how most every Protestant church believes and teaches. Again I clearly see that the early church writers support the sound Biblical teaching that the bread and wine of communion are "symbols”. So once again the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is clearly NOT supported by the word of TRUTH nor is it supported or taught by the early church believers.
Augustine (354-430 AD)
"To be sure, we often speak in the following way: As Pascha approaches, we say that tomorrow, or the day after, is 'the Passion of the Lord,' although He suffered so many years before, and His Passion occurred only once. Indeed, on that particular Lord’s Day we say 'Today the Lord has risen,' although many, many years have passed since the time when he arose. Why is it that there is no one so foolish as to accuse us of being liars when we speak in this way? It is because we name these days according to a likeness to the days on which those events took place. Thus a day, which is NOT the ACTUAL day, but like to it in the circle of the year, takes its name from the actual day because of the celebration of the sacrament which occurred, not on the very day of the celebration, but long ago....For if sacraments did not have a certain likeness to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all....Therefore....in a certain way the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ"26
Quite obviously Augustine makes in very plain that the day which they speak of is not ACTUALLY that day, as the Lord's rose many years ago, and His passion occurred only once, and then he makes a comparison with the certain likeness of the element NOT being the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus, but that they were in a CERTAIN WAY the body of Christ. Augustine goes on to say.
"And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.' ...But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, 'Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.' Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, 'This is an hard saying, who can hear it?' And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:' they received it foolishly, they THOUGHT of it carnally, and IMAGINED that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, 'This is a hard saying.' It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand SPIRITUALLY what I have said; ye are NOT to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood"27
Then Augustine adds the following.
"`Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, `and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a FIGURE, enjoining that we should have a share in the SUFFERINGS of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable MEMORY of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."28
To me these early church believers who wrote down the teachings that were handed down to them by the apostles of Jesus make it absolutely clear that they did NOT believe nor did they teach the false Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Augustine recognizes that to literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ would be to commit a "crime or a vice". THEREFORE he concludes that Jesus is speaking in terms of a FIGURE.
Theodoret (393-457 AD)
"Eranistes: 'Therefore, just as the symbols of the Lord’s body and of his blood are one thing before the priest’s invocation, but after the invocation are changed, and become something else, so to was the Lord’s body changed, after the ascension, into the divine essence.'
Orthodox Theodoret: 'You have been caught in the nets which you have woven, for not even after the consecration do the mystical symbols depart from their own nature! They continue in their former essence, both in shape and appearance, and are visible, and palpable, as they were beforehand."29
Here in this dialogue we see two OPPOSING points of view. Please note the YEAR that these CONTROVERSIES began to arise. The year is around 400 years after the founding of the church before we can actually see any CLEAR evidence of the Catholic view of transubstantiation, which we see is being REFUTED by Theodoret, who says to Eranistes 'You have been caught in the nets which you have woven, for not even after the consecration do the mystical symbols depart from their own nature! They continue in their former essence, both in shape and appearance, and are visible, and palpable, as they were beforehand.'
He boldly speaks out against the idea that the priest's invocation can CHANGE the bread and wine into another nature or essence and says you are weaving a net, which to me makes me think of a web of deception. Anyway there is no doubt that up to this point in history the early church did NOT believe in transubstantiation and THEREFORE it is being REJECTED and OPPOSED as being a FALSE teaching. But as time goes on the Christians who OPPOSE this Catholic teaching are PERSECUTED and even brutally MARTYRED by the Catholic church for their opposing this false doctrine of transubstantiation and many other FALSE teaching of the Catholic church.
So just ask yourself the simple question, WHO is behind PERSECUTION of God's people? That is right. The god of this world Satan is the one who influenced the Catholic church to brutally slaughtered entire Christian families just because they did not AGREE with the TEACHINGS of the Catholic church and they openly OPPOSED this doctrine of transubstantiation as being a FALSE doctrine. Obviously to ME I can clearly see why the Catholic church saw the need to exterminate those who opposed her, because she knew that if even ONE so called INFALLIBLE doctrine was proven to be wrong, then the whole Catholic church system would crumble and fall. Just my opinion so lets more on to the FACTS.
Gelasius I (d. 496 AD)
"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. YET the substance or nature of the bread and wine does NOT cease. And ASSUREDLY the IMAGE and the SIMILITUDE of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."30
Now this was written according to the Catholic church by one of it's greatest early "popes", who says ASSUREDLY referring to the bread and wine that it does NOT CEASE to be it's own substance and is an IMAGE or a SIMILITUDE OF the body and blood of Jesus. So very CLEARLY we see that EVEN a Catholic POPE rejects the teaching of transubstantiation of these elements into the literal body and blood of Christ.
So then, the early church believers, who support and teach the SOUND BIBLICAL teaching that the elements of bread and wine are clearly seen as SYMBOLS, are: Tertullian, Cyprian, the Apostolic Confessions, Serapion, Eusebius, Eustathius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Macarius, Athanasius, Augustine, Gelasius, Theodoret, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Jerome Ambrosiaster and Zwingli. We also saw earlier in this study that the Waldenians opposed this false Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
So while it is true that some Christians such as John Chrysostom, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose held to the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, which again did not come to be fully accepted as an OFFICIAL dogma of the Catholic church until 1215 AD, it can be clearly seen that these Catholic believers are in the minority of voices within the EARLY church.
Here are some of the quotes by these Catholic church writers.
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: The bread and the wine of the eucharist before the holy invocation of the worshipful Trinity was simple bread and wine, but when the invocation is done, the bread becomes the body of Christ and wine the blood of Christ. (Lectures on the Mysteries i.7 [= Catechetical Lectures XIX:7] )
For in the type of the bread there is given to you the body, and in the type of the wine there is given to you the blood, in order that you may become by partaking of the body and blood of Christ the same body and blood with him. For even so we become bearers of Christ since his body and blood are distributed in our members. (Ibid. iv. 3 [=XXII:3] )
We beseech the loving God to send forth the Holy Spirit upon what is offered in order that he may make the bread the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ. For whatever the Holy Spirit touches he sanctifies and changes. (Ibid. v.7 [=XXIII:7] )
GREGORY OF NYSSA: He disseminates himself through that flesh whose substance comes from bread and wine in every one who believes in the economy of grace, blending himself with the bodies of believers, as if by this union with what is immortal, man too may become a partaker in incorruption. He gives these things by the power of the benediction through which he transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing. (Catechetical Oration 37)
AMBROSE: But this bread is bread before the words of the sacraments. When consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the body of Christ. Let us, therefore, prove this. How is it possible for that which is bread to be the body of Christ? By consecration. In whose words then is the consecration? Those of the Lord Jesus. [The next chapter quotes the words of the last supper as repeated by the priest, and the explanation concludes:] Before the words of Christ the cup is full of wine and water. When the words of Christ have operated, then is made the blood which redeems the people. (On the Sacraments IV.iv.14-v.23)
Now please keep in mind that these quotes from Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose did not come until AFTER the council of Nicaea, which is around the time in the history of the church that this doctrine of real presence began to be spread, but still at this time the majority of the church believed and taught the the elements of bread and wine of communion were SYMBOLIC and only represented the body and blood of Jesus, and this Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was rejected and opposed with intensity.
Also we must remember that we do NOT judge whether a doctrine of the church is true of false BY the MAJORITY who teach such a doctrine. But rather we are to judge all the teaching of the church in the LIGHT of the WORD of TRUTH, the Holy Bible by KEEPING the verse in question in their CONTEXT and then comparing what is concluded with the WHOLE word of Almighty God to see if our INTERPRETATION does indeed AGREE with the rest of God's word. If it does not agree, then we must reject that INTERPRETATION as a FLASE teaching.
It most definitely appears that in the early church the MAJORITY was on the side of the elements of communion be SYMBOLIC. But as centuries went by that MAJORITY shifted to the side of the Catholic church and it's FALSE teaching of transubstantiation. Now the Catholic church uses this majority to try and prove that they are correct and every other church is in error, but again this is not judging church doctrine by the word of TRUTH, but rather but MAN'S OPINION.
So then, having clearly shown that transubstantiation, which is the very heart and soul of the Roman Catholic Mass, is not found in the historical teachings within the early church. Therefore we must ask as to WHEN did this doctrine of transubstantiation actually take a strong foothold in the Christian church?
The first official formulation of the doctrine known then as the “Real Presence” was made at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD.
But even after this time, these was still much opposition and the doctrine was slow to gain general acceptance within Roman Catholicism.
Durant wrote in 855 AD that French Benedictine monk named Ratramnus taught that the bread and wine were spiritually the body and blood of Christ, not carnally so, which again tells us that this doctrine of real presence was not totally accepted withing the Catholic church. We know that Christians who were not in any way a part of the Catholic church did not agree with the doctrine of real presence, but even within the Catholic church itself there was still DIVISION concerning this doctrine of real presence.
It was not till later that this doctrine of real presence gained momentum to become strong enough in the Catholic church that the Berenger the Archdeacon of Tours in 1045 AD who was a Catholic that questioned the reality of transubstantiation, was excommunicated for OPPOSING the teaching of the Catholic church and was made an example of mockery. This public show of mocking those who opposed the teachings of the Catholic church at least slowed the opposition within the Catholic church itself and the doctrine of real presence, which by this time took on the formal name of transubstantiation, until it was finally proclaimed to be an OFFICIAL essential dogma by the Third Lateran Council in 1215, which was nearly twelve centuries after the founding of the church, which was NOT ROMAN Catholic from the beginning of the Christian church like the Roman Catholic church would have their followers to believe.
My point is that this doctrine of real presence known today in the Catholic church as the doctrine of transubstantiation was NOT taught in the early church nor was it taught by Jesus and his apostle in the New Testament. So where then did this doctrine come? We will answer this question in section or reason number 6 of why I personally do NOT believe in the FALSE Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Here in reason # 6 we will take a look at the origin of the doctrine of transubstantiation hopefully without leaving the implication that the Catholic church deliberately and intentionally took their doctrine straight form the pagan teaching of their offering to their false gods changed substance. But rather I personally would like to believe that those early church fathers who formed this doctrine over many centuries were DECEIVED by the god of this world who influences all mean to rebel against the one true and only Almighty God. With that being said let us begin this section taking a look at the pagan traditions and then compare them to what the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches.
The Pagan Origin of Transubstantiation
Seeing that transubstantiation, which is the central element and very heart of the Mass, is NOT Scriptural as we have clearly seen in the above in depth study of God's word of TRUTH, then we must ask from WHERE then does it come?
The obvious answer is that it comes from the god of this world who influence the pagan religious systems to offer sacrifices to him. Now these pagan religions origins extend back to the antiquity of man's rebellion against their creator Almighty God.
Among the very early Indo-Aryans the idea or thought of transubstantiation was known and seen in their ceremonies of sacrifice. Brahmins taught that rice-cakes which were offered in sacrifice to the gods were SUBSTITUTES for real human beings, which were then converted into real flesh and blood by the manipulations of the priests.
Sumner reported that in many primitive tribes, ceremonies exist in which the participants partake of images of the god made from grain flour, sometimes prepared using human blood kneaded into the dough, which a priest then turns into the god by means of magic formulas. This primitive style of direct incorporation of the power of the various gods into the human existence continued as paganism became more refined.
In ancient Mexico, The Aztecs and many other tribes believed in the ceremonial transformation of consecrated bread into the actual flesh and blood of various gods.
Egyptian mythology, a wafer
inscribed with the name
or symbolism of Osiris, was offered to participants in their
ceremonies after consecration
by the priests
of that god.
It is believed by some that this last artifice continued into Christian times through the pagan religion worshiping Isis, which was one of the popular Oriental religious systems that found wide coverage across the Roman Empire. In this pagan religion the mystery of the death of Osiris and his subsequent rebirth as her son Horus, was celebrated. The flesh of the dead Osiris, then ruler of the underworld, was offered to the worshipers of the mother Isis and her perpetually infant son Horus.
The belief in transubstantiation manifested itself widely in the ares of Egypt, Mexico, and India. It is the Egyptian belief that is likely the teaching which was incorporated into the Roman Empire.
Again it is believed by some Christians that during the period of the 4th through the 5th centuries that the growing Roman Catholic church compromised it's beliefs with the pagan religions of the Roman Empire in an effort to draw them into its sphere of influence and control. This merging of Christianity with the pagan THOUGHT began to show up in its actual practices. One of these practices was the introduction of the belief in transubstantiation, which began as the THOUGH of the very PRESENCE of Jesus being in the elements of bread and wine. Again this doctrine first began under the term called the doctrine of the "Real Presence", which taught that the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood was in the host consecrated by priestly ritual. This parallels the pagan belief system. Now whether or not this pagan belief system enter the church INTENTIONALLY as some imply to keep the pagans happy. Or whether this pagan belief system enter the church by the DECEPTION of the enemy of our souls. The point is that this belief in transubstantiation was pagan in origin long before it was adopted into the Catholic church.
So then. My dear bothers and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, now that you know the TRUTH that the doctrine of transubstantiation is NOT a SOUND BIBLICAL teaching what should you do?
Now I myself do not stand in judgment of whether or not you as a Catholic are truly saved or not. I hold to the belief that there are true born again Christians in EVERY denomination just as there are those who SAY that they are Christians, but their fruits clearly show that they are NOT. But even then I do not stand in judgment of them, because I trust that God is working in them to walk righteously before him. My point is that this study is not about be saved or lost, but rather about is what we are being TAUGHT by the denominations or church that we attend if the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.
As for ME, my conscience would NOT let me remain in the Catholic church AFTER I learned from the Holy Spirit that what I was being TAUGHT in the Catholic church was NOT sound BIBLICAL teaching. I made the choice to believe ONLY what I saw for MYSELF to be the TRUTH of the whole word of Almighty God, because I came to realize that NO church denomination can save us. Please read the study HOW CAN I BE SAVED! For the sound Biblical teaching of what we must do in order to be saved and receive eternal life in the world to come. My final point is are you going to place your reward of eternal life into the hands of another, or are you going to get into God's word and see what HE requires of you to be pleasing to HIM.
Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek him with your whole heart.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
RETURN TO HOMEPAGE