I am certain that in the second grade, in preparation for my first communion, I was taught the
basics concerning the consecration. However, it was in the later years of elementary school that I
learned the specifics - what was taking place, the significance of it, and it's name. The specific
belief that was the most intriguing and awe-inspiring was called Transubstantiation. That is what
this article is about, Transubstantiation, and the results of my study concerning it away from the
influence of devout Roman Catholic teachers.
WHAT IS IT?
I leaned about Transubstantiation from the Baltimore Catechism. While the Catechism is not as
widely used today, the belief is the same. Thus, we will let the Catechism define it for us. An
important point to be made is that Transubstantiation takes place in the sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist. On page 273 of the Baltimore Catechism we find:
"The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Jesus Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words 'really, truly, and substantially' to describe Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish Our Lord's teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power."
The Catechism teaches that our Lord instituted the sacrament of Holy Eucharist at the Last
Supper. In answer to the question, "What happened when Our Lord said: 'This is my body...this is
my blood'?" on page 276, the Catechism says:
"When Our Lord said, 'This is My body,' the entire substance of the bread was changed into His body; and when He said, 'This is My blood,' the entire substance of the wine was changed into his blood. (a) Christ could not have used clearer, more explicit words than 'This is My body.' He did not say, 'This is a sign of My body,' or 'This represents My body,' but 'This is My body.' Catholics take Christ at His word because He is the omnipotent God. On His word they know that the Holy Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ."
In answer to the question, "Did anything of the bread and wine remain after their substance had
been changed into our Lord's body and blood?" we find on page 277:
"After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into our Lord's body and blood, there remained only the appearances of bread and wine. (a) Because the appearances of bread and wine remain in the Holy Eucharist, we cannot see Christ with our bodily eyes in this sacrament. We do see Him, however, with the eyes of faith. Our bodily eyes, moreover, do not deceive us when they see the appearances of bread and wine, for these appearances really remain after the Consecration of the Mass."
The Catechism teaches that the change of the entire substance into the body and blood of Jesus is
called Transubstantiation. One other statement from the Catechism that I want to notice in
summarizing this section is found on page 279, where, in answer to the question, "How was our
Lord able to change bread and wine into His body and blood?" the Baltimore Catechism says,
"Our Lord was able to change bread and wine into His body and blood by His almighty power. (a) God, who created all things from nothing, who fed the five thousand with five loaves, who changed water into wine instantaneously, who raised the dead to life, can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Although the Holy Eucharist is a great mystery, and consequently beyond human understanding, the principles of sound reason can show that this great gift is not impossible by the power of God."
So then, Transubstantiation is that process whereby the bread and wine of the mass are changed
into the real body and blood of Christ. It takes place at the consecration with the words, "This is
my body," and "This is my blood," being uttered by the celebrating priest. There is no physical
evidence whatsoever that such a change has taken place, since the bread and wine retain their
color, taste, weight, shape, and anything else that appears to be senses. It is a marvelous mystery
beyond human understanding, and yet it is an integral part of Roman Catholic teaching. To be a
Catholic one must believe in Transubstantiation. I, for one, most certainly did.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Since it is a principle of Roman Catholicism that "No proposition can be declared an article of
faith unless perpetual belief in the church can be affirmed of it" (The Roman Catholic Church,
John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 212) and since the Baltimore Catechism stated that the Lord
instituted the Holy Eucharist (Transubstantiation) at the Last Supper, it stands to reason that the
early church must have both believed and practiced it.
Now, with this being true, and it must be or Transubstantiation cannot be an article of faith, why
is it that we do not find any inkling of this belief until the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th
century? Why is it that it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. that
Transubstantiation was declared as an article of faith? Why is it that the Council of Trent saw fit
to restate it on Oct. 11, 1551? And why is it that in The Book of Catholic Quotations, bearing
the Imprimatur of Francis Cardinal Spellman, we find under the heading of "The Eucharist
Sacrifice" this quote from Justin Martyr's "Dialogue With Trypho," written in the second
century:
"It is quite evident that this prophecy (Isaiah 33, 13-19) also alludes to the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which he taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"?
It is obvious that the early church, under the direction of the apostles and those who lived very
near the time of the apostles, did not believe in nor practice Transubstantiation. It is clear from
their own quotation that in the second century the bread was viewed as a remembrance of the
body of Christ, and not the body itself. It is equally clear that the wine was viewed as
commemorating the blood of Christ, and not as the blood itself. It was almost 1200 years after the
establishment of the church before transubstantiation was definitely set forth. Doesn't it seem
unlikely that all of those infallible popes over that 1200 year period did not see fit to declare
Transubstantiation as an article of faith if they themselves believed and practiced it?
Another question that I believe must be answered arises from one of the quotes in the Baltimore
Catechism, in which an attempt was made to prove the possibility of Transubstantiation. The
Catechism said:
"Our Lord was able to change bread and wine into His body and blood by His almighty power. (a) God, who created all things from nothing, who fed the five thousand with five loaves, who changed water into wine instantaneously, who raised the dead to life, can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ."
I do not doubt the power of God, but I do doubt the logic of the reasoning of the Catholic
authorities. The miracles that they used to prove their point prove far too much. In each case
there was substantial evidence that a miracle had taken place. When God created all things from
nothing, where there had been nothing there was then all things - real things that could be seen
and touched. When five thousand were fed with five loaves, five thousand ate something that was
real, that could be chewed and tasted. When they were filled, there was much evidence of the
miracle left over. When the water was changed into wine, it did not retain the physical qualities of
water, it became wine. When Lazarus was raised from the dead, Lazarus himself was evidence of
the miracle. The point is that miracles were faith producing, not faith dependent. When our Lord
performed a miracle there was ample evidence that a miracle had taken place. The evidence of
Transubstantiation is that nothing has happened. An appeal to faith is not sufficient. God's
miracles produced faith, they did not depend on it.
I am aware that many have vehemently opposed Transubstantiation, and some in their zealousness
have even called it a form of cannibalism. But that is not the point. If our Lord has instructed us
to do something, we are to do it. But our Lord did not teach us the doctrine of
Transubstantiation, the early church did not believe or practice it, and it took the Roman Catholic
authorities 1200 years to definitely state it. It is another instance of a gradual development of a
doctrine in the minds of men which the Roman Catholic authorities presume to present as having
been taught by the Lord. While it is tedious reading, allow me to present the theological argument
used by Roman Catholic authorities to support their doctrine, and you can determine for
yourselves if this is from the mind of God or from the wandering imaginations of man. It almost
makes you wonder which came first - the doctrine or the reasoning that is supposed to support it.
THEOLOGICAL GOBBLEDEGOOK
From the book, The Roman Catholic Faith, by John L. McKenzie, S.J., and bearing the
Imprimatur of Joseph P. O'Brien, S.T.D., Vicar General of Archdiocese of New York, May 14,
1969, p. 148, we find:
"Since the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), the official word for the sacramental change is transubstantiation, a rather barbarous term both in Latin and English. As the Council defined it, it means that the entire substances of the bread is changed into the substances of the body of Christ, and the entire substance of the wine into the blood of Christ, with only the species of bread and wine remaining. The Latin word species here would normally be translated 'appearances,' but in the cautious language of Roman Catholic theology the Latin word usually goes into English as species, and thus becomes unintelligible to the untrained. The Catholic assertion is based on the Aristotelian and medieval philosophy of substance and accident, defined in the schools respectively as that which exists in itself (substance) and that which exists in something else (accident). The bread and wine become substantially something else, but accidently they unchanged. Thus the body and blood of Christ are not seen, touched, or tasted; no substance is the object of the senses. But what is present is the substance, for only a substance can be present. The body and blood of Christ do not take on the sensible qualities of bread and wine. The body of Christ is neither expanded nor contracted nor moved from place to place; it simply becomes present where the transubstantiation has been effected by the sacramental formula. It is not present in the same manner (called in the schools local presence) as it was present in Galilee, however; it is present as a substance. To illustrate, my own presence in this office is not due to my substantial reality, but to 'the commensuration of my extension with the extension of the place where I sit.'"
If this came from the mind of God, why is it necessary for the Catholic assertion to be based on
the Aristotelian and medieval philosophy of substance and accident? Truly, this is an example of
theological gobbledegook. Since God's word does not teach Transubstantiation, Roman Catholic
authorities must turn to theology to make their case.
My friend, if you are a Catholic, ask your priest to prove that Transubstantiation was always believed by the Church. He will not be able to do it.