I’m a Protestant with a question about transubstantiation. I understand the basics of the doctrine and the philosophical terms behind it, so you needn’t rehash those. The issue I see is that, if the bread and wine “really and truly” transform into flesh and blood, why is there no accompanying chemical change? There is no change in how the elements appear, nor in how they taste, or how our bodies digest them. If you put them under a microscope and didn’t know they had been blessed, you would think they were ordinary bread and wine.
Under normal circumstances, when God transforms something, you can tell. Jesus changed the water into wine; presumably the color changed, and we know that the taste changed. When God said, “Let there be light,” there was light – an observable change.
But the transformation of bread into flesh and wine into blood is completely unobservable, even in theory. I know the argument is that the accidents are unchanged but the substance changed, but under ordinary circumstances, what makes blood blood is its chemical makeup.
It seems like the doctrine of transubstantiation makes matter an illusion in much the same way Gnosticism did. You can’t trust your senses. The physical isn’t what matters. It’s the “spiritual” that matters. Am I misunderstanding anything? Is there a standard Catholic response to this type of charge? I can’t be the first one to have said it.
I hope I haven’t offended. Please understand that I’m earnestly looking for an answer, not trolling.