p. 6 | The Doctrine of Transubstantiation by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 24, 1914

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation

By C. M. S.

“Rome Never Changes”—No. 7

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation

ONE of the most important tenets of the Roman Catholic faith is that of transubstantiation. In that tenet, or doctrine, is found the basis and the reason for what is known as “the sacrifice of the mass;” and the important place which that practice or sacrament holds in the Roman Church service warrants an inquiry into the doctrine upon which it is founded. That we may know exactly what transubstantiation is and what is involved in it, we give its definition as found in the creed of Pope Pius IV:—

I profess likewise that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.

The Council of Trent, in its decree concerning transubstantiation, speaks as follows:—

And because that Christ our Redeemer declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the church of God, and this holy synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made 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; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” (Authorized Translations), page 74.

This is not laid down as something which may be believed or may be denied, but something which must be believed and, if denied, will bring upon him who denies it the curse of the church. The Council of Trent (sess. 13, chap. 8. Canon 1) sets forth this obligation in the following words:—

If any one denieth 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 saith that he is only there as a sign, or in figure, or virtue, let him be anathema.

The Roman Church even goes so far as to declare that in every particle of the bread there is the whole body, soul, and divinity of our Lord, and in every particle of the wine the same. If this doctrine can be proved untrue, then the whole service of the mass is founded upon nothing; and that service is the chief service of the Roman Church.

In the first place, the doctrine is inconsistent even with itself; and in the second place, it is an utter perversion of Scripture. In the above quotation from “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees” it is asserted that the whole substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine is converted into the substance of his blood. The bread becomes his very body, and the wine becomes his very blood. But even this is not sufficiently mysterious to suit the purpose of Rome. Therefore the Council of Trent makes this further declaration:—

Immediately after the consecration the veritable body of our Lord and his veritable blood, together with his soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both.

Wherefore it is most true that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ, whole and entire, is under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine and under the parts thereof (Canon 3).

The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as instituted by him is consistent with itself, and all that he said in reference thereto is logical and reasonable and plain and easy to be understood. But what Rome has given to the church in place of the Lord’s Supper is inconsistent with itself and illogical and unreasonable, and is not understood by any one, not even the learned doctors of the Roman Church, who have disputed over it for centuries.

If, for instance, the bread is actually converted into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood, “it must take the bread and the wine combined to furnish a full presentation of Christ.” How can it then be possible that each of the elements is an entire Christ? If each of the elements is an entire Christ, then there are at least two Christs on the altar at every such service. And if it be true that Christ is whole and entire in every particle of the bread and in every drop of the wine, then there are as many Christs present, whole and entire, as there are particles of the bread and drops of the wine. This doctrine would make foolishness of the simple but sublime service of the Lord’s Supper.

Such inconsistencies and absurdities and mysticisms are dishonoring to the service; and there is nothing in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as he instituted it that calls for anything of the kind. When he broke the bread and passed it to his disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is broken for you,” he was giving them a symbol which was to represent his body sacrificed for man, which would help to keep that sacrifice always fresh in their minds. When he instituted that ordinance, he was there in his own body. What an absurdity men seek to put into the mouth of our Lord when they accuse him of teaching that in breaking the bread and passing it to his disciples, he was breaking his own literal body and passing it out to be eaten, and he there present in his own literal body all the while!

When Jesus passed the cup to his disciples and said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins,” he was giving them the wine as a symbol of the blood which would be spilled for the sins of man, but was not yet spilled; and the use of the wine in that ordinance was designed to keep in the minds of men what salvation cost the Son of God. That Christ did not intend his disciples should consider that wine as his actual blood is shown by his statement which immediately follows the passing of the cup to his disciples. He said:—

“But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt. 26: 29.

If our Lord considered that wine his own literal blood, he would never have made that declaration, for it will be wine and not blood that will be drunk there. The wine represents that shed blood, and the bread represents that broken body; and in this memorial symbolism there is nothing incongruous or absurd or revolting. Nevertheless, the Council of Trent declared it to be “a crime most unworthy” and a “satanical” “invention” to hold that our Saviour’s words were used figuratively when he instituted the ordinance. (See “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” sess. 13, chap. 1.)

But there are expressions made by our Saviour in the same connection which Rome does interpret figuratively. For instance, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Must we interpret that expression literally?—No. Rome does not claim literalism here. The Saviour used “cup” meaning what it contained, the wine. He spoke of the wine as “the fruit of the vine.” Rome says this also is figurative. But that expression which, above all, must be considered figurative in order to be consistent with itself, she declares must be literal.

In the Hebrew language and its dialects it was a custom to use the words “this is,” with the meaning “this signifies” or “represents.” We find it in such expressions as “the seven good kine

are seven years,” “the ten horns are ten kings,” “the seven candlesticks are the seven churches,” “all flesh is grass,” “I am the door.” Now Jesus is not a literal door; and yet there is a plain declaration that he is. The ten horns are not literal kings; and yet it is declared that they are. Flesh is not literal grass; and yet those words say that it is. But do we accuse the divine record of untruthfulness?—Certainly not. Even a child understands what it means. The horns represent kings; the good kine represent years; the candlesticks represent churches; and flesh and grass are alike in that both perish quickly.

Therefore, when Jesus said, “This is my body,” his disciples understood his meaning, and we understand it. The bread was broken and given, by himself, for the benefit of others. So his body was broken and was given, by himself, for the benefit of the race. In that particular the bread stood for his body, represented it; and his followers, through all the centuries, when they would partake of the broken bread would see and remember the broken body of their Saviour. And so of the wine. There was no hidden meaning, no mysticism, no metaphysical philosophizing, no inconsistency, in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as Jesus instituted it and as he left it.

The apostle Paul said: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show [set forth, or celebrate] the Lord’s death till he come.” And that is consistent with the whole idea of the institution; but Rome says this ordinance is not a celebration or a showing, but a literal repetition of the death of Christ. This destroys entirely the memorial idea in the ordinance, and, in doing this, seeks to repeat at every service what Inspiration declares was done once for all in our Saviour’s death on Calvary.

Paul’s words “till he come” are entirely out of harmony with Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper was to be repeated “till he come.” But if transubstantiation be true, he comes every time a priest consecrates the bread and the wine. According to that belief, whenever a priest says over the wafer, “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” the literal body of our Lord is present. In other words, Christ comes at the call of the priest, and is literally eaten by the people.

The boast of Rome that “Rome never changes” would lead one to suppose that this doctrine of transubstantiation had always been held by that body. In fact, the Council of Trent declares, as previously quoted, that it has “ever been a firm belief in the church of God.” But that statement is very far from being a fact. The word transubstantiation was not used until about the year 1100, when

Stephen, Bishop of Augustodunum, used it. It was 115 years later that the doctrine itself was adopted and promulgated by the Lateran Council (A. D. 1215) under the popedom of Innocent III, and was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. Does it not seem strange that an infallible church should have continued for twelve centuries in complete ignorance of a doctrine so important that its denial merits the curse of the church?

If those are cursed who do not believe that doctrine now, what must Rome say of those in her own church who never believed it and who stubbornly resisted the attempt to bring the idea into her fold? Will she curse them? If so, she must curse such men as Ephrem, Macarius, Theodoret, Vigilius, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. And it would be a most anomalous situation, a great church cursing its saints, the very saints to whom it prays. Yet those men taught that the bread and wine were no more than types or figures of the body and blood of Christ; and they were right. Cardinal Cajetan, commenting on Heb. 10:18, says:—

From the fact that by the new law remission of sins is made by the one offering of Christ, he argues that no other offering for sins remains. For in such a case an injury would be done to the offering of Christ, as though it were insufficient.—Pauli Epp., page 201, Ed. Paris, 1540.

Cardinal Contarini gives this testimony, which is a flat contradiction of what Rome teaches now, and is a denial of the decrees of the Council of Trent previously quoted:—

No Christian author, either ancient or modern, of any name, hath said that the mass is a sacrifice of the priest ex opere operantis, whereby, as if in rivalry of the sacrifice of Christ, the priest obtains for us remission of sins. Nay, Ambrose and Augustine affirm that in the mass there is a remembrance and commemoration of that one sacrifice which Christ offered. . . . Lo, it is expressly said that we make a remembrance of the passion of Christ, by which one sacrifice we are reconciled to God.—De Sacram. Opp., page 350.

Other testimonies might be given to the same effect; but here are two cardinals of the Roman Church teaching directly contrary to the creed of Pope Pius IV, and also in direct antagonism to the decrees of the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent. Dare Rome carry out her threat and place her curse upon these two cardinals? Theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says:—

He [Christ] did not change the nature of the bread, but added grace to nature.—Eranistes, Dial. 1.

Many of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church made similar declarations. Bruys admits that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not in evidence before the ninth century, and was unknown in the darker ages of antiquity. Pascasius, who discovered it, was opposed by nearly all his contemporaries, who rose up in strenuous opposition to the innovation. Bertramn, at the instance of the French king, published a work in refutation of Pascasius’s invention. After the Reformation, Bertramn’s work, which rather favored the Reformers, was condemned by the Pope, by councils, and by cardinals, and was placed on the Index Expurgatorius. But after a century and a half this book, condemned by an infallible church, was declared sound and genuine.

In the light of these facts, what becomes of the declaration of the Council of Trent that it has “ever been a firm belief of the church of God” “that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord,” etc.? It is thus proved untrue. The doctrine itself is a contradiction and a perversion of Scripture; and in maintaining that it has always been the “firm belief” of that church, Rome contradicts her own history; and, further, in anathematizing the opposite belief, Rome places under her curse her own saints and cardinals. Upon such a foundation rests the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, and upon that doctrine rests, and out of it grows, the most important service of the Roman Church, the “sacrifice of the mass,” of which we shall treat in another article. C. M. S.