- Allowing The Roman Catholic Catechism To Speak:
- Consider The Words Of Former Presbyterian Turned Roman Catholic Dr. Scott Hahn Concerning His First Encounter With The Eucharist:
- A Detailed Logical Critique Of Roman Catholic Transubstantiation:
2.) Why would somebody want to eat human flesh and drink human blood? Is not cannibalism a sure sign of spiritual apostasy (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Ezekiel 5:10)? Does not Christ already dwell fully in the bodies of believers through the presence of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17)?
3.) Scripture defines the "gospel" as believing from the heart in the death, burial, resurrection, and the appearance of Jesus Christ before five hundred witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). How come the Eucharist is never included in a biblical presentation of the gospel message? How come the earliest church creeds mention nothing about Roman Catholic transubstantiation as being an essential article of the Christian faith?
4.) How does the so-called power of transubstantiation not imply that the authority of the parish priest is superior to that of our Lord Jesus Christ? Does he somehow become the creator of the Creator? Where in Scripture do we find miracles that take place without a trace of perceptible evidence?
5.) If we must interpret the bread of life discourse in John 6 literally because our Lord Jesus Christ had stated six times to "eat His flesh and drink His blood," then why must we accept what Catholics say when they claim that the term "thousand years" in Revelation 20 is symbolic, yet repeated six times, in support of their amillennialism? How does repetition translate into literalness?
6.) Did not Jesus Christ literally say that all who eat His flesh and drink His blood will receive everlasting life (John 6:54), including unrepentant pagans and atheists? If we are going to be consistent with the literalist interpretation of the bread of life discourse, then should people who eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood (consecrated elements of the Mass) never physically hunger and thirst again (John 6:35)? Is this not absurd?
7.) If Jesus' use of the Greek term "phago" (meaning to gnaw, chew, indicates a slow process) in John 6:54-58 decisively proves that we must interpret His words literally, then how come the disciples did not start consuming His flesh and drinking His blood on the spot? Would it not be more reasonable to view this passage as Christ demonstrating His superiority to the Torah (John 6:49-51), namely in that He can fulfill completely our spiritual hunger and thirst (John 6:35-40)? Why ignore the analogy emphatically set forth in John chapter six, precisely that God had provided manna to the Israelites as deliverance from starvation, so He had sent Christ into the world as a sacrificial provision to deliver us from condemnation? That would be the meaning of Christ being the "bread from heaven." So does not "eating His flesh" and "drinking His blood" mean coming to Him and accepting what He has done on our behalf?
8.) Notice what our Lord Jesus Christ stated concerning the communion elements, "this is my body...this is my blood..." Why didn't Jesus say of the bread and wine, "this becomes my body...this becomes my blood?"
9.) What biblical basis exists to justify the notion that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice of the Mass are "one in the same" (CCC #1367)? How can this be? What Scripture teaches that the work of Christ is "ongoing" (CCC #1405)? What did Jesus mean when He had said of His work, "It is finished" (John 19:30)? What does Scripture mean when it states that Christ does not need to offer sacrifices day after day like the high priests of the Old Testament did (Hebrews 7:27)?
10.) If the host is truly the literal body of Jesus Christ, then should we expect that the bread wafer never becomes stale, moldy, or goes through the process of decomposition (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27)?
11.) Would the priest be willing to consume the consecrated elements, if he knew that they had been saturated in poison (prior to the event of transubstantiation)?
12.) Did not our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instruct us to serve a cup of wine with the bread during communion (Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29)? How come the Roman Catholic Church is not consistent with Scripture on this point?
13.) If transubstantiation is true, then how is it that the Corinthian Christians, who were found guilty of abusing the Lord's Supper ceremony, had managed to become intoxicated with the wine (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)? Where was the change in "substance" that time? What passage of Scripture actually teaches transubstantiation? How does this process work?
14.) If "this is my body" and "this is my blood" literally means that the bread and wine were transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, then does "this cup is the new testament" literally mean that the literal cup becomes a literal covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:25)? Is the Lord literally our Rock (Psalm 18:31)? Why not just admit that "is" can easily mean "this is representative of" or "this symbolizes"? What scriptural evidence do we have suggesting that the apostles had taken Jesus' words literally?
15.) If the Lord's Supper was truly a Mass service, then how could Jesus be sitting there as the same time proclaiming the bread and wine to be His literal flesh and blood? Would He not be holding Himself? Would we not have an illogical scenario of Jesus Christ offering Himself for the sins of the world prior to the appointed time of the crucifixion?
16.) If the human body of Christ is located in heaven at the Father's right hand, then how can it be at the same time in thousands of different places at Masses across the globe? How does this not violate His incarnation?
17.) If the communion wafer is supposed to look identical after transubstantiation into the literal body of Christ, then why not also believe people when they claim to have the ability to transform us into inanimate objects such as iron (our appearances remain the same, yet our substances are drastically altered)? Should we believe the pope if he had just so happened to pronounce an ex-cathedra statement declaring that priests have the ability to transform squares into triangles, or both (without a perceptible change)? How is this outrageously ridiculous Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation not violate the concrete nature of reason, common sense, and reality?
18.) How do advocates of the Eucharist explain the fact that Jesus Christ ate the same bread and drank from the same cup that the Church of Rome claims became His actual body and blood (Matthew 26:27-29; Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:7-16)? Why would Jesus need to eat His own flesh and drink His own blood when He was already sinless (Hebrews 7:26-27)?
19.) The tense of the Greek word "eat" as found in John 6:50-58 is aorist, proving the specific action to be done once for all and without duration. How then would we be able to eat His flesh and drink His blood repeatedly at each Roman Catholic Mass? Is this not contrary to any Catholic notion of Christ's atoning work being ongoing?
20.) What does Scripture mean when it states that Christ gave Himself up as a ransom for our sins "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10-14; 1 Peter 3:18)? Why would the atonement sacrifice of Christ need to be "re-presented"? Did not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself confess to using figurative language on the night of the Last Supper (John 16:25-30)?
21.) "It undermines belief in the resurrection because if our senses are deceiving us about the consecrated host, then how do we know they are not deceiving us about the resurrection appearances of Christ which is at the heart of the gospel?" (https://normangeisler.com/does-the-nt-support-the-rc-view-of-communion/)