Help Me Refute this anti-Catholic Article


Please help me refute this anti-Catholic article pertaining to Transubstantiation. Some of you guys may have already read this article and refuted it in other threads. If so, please provide links. I suppose I could do it myself, however I’m requesting your time and resources (which I don’t have much of). There are seven points made and, if you could, please provide scripture to refute each point.

Here’s their first point:

"First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal

No where in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words: It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.
But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, “This is My blood…” and “This is my body…” This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: “I am the bread of life,” (John 6:48); “I am the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25); “I am the true vine,” (John 15:1), etc. Jesus often spoke in figurative terms and in the context of Jesus telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood, He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, “…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63).
After Jesus said, “This is my blood,” (Matt. 26:28), He said, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom, (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as “the fruit of the vine” if it was His literal blood? We can clearly see that Jesus was speaking figuratively.”

Second point:

"Second - there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed

 There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ.  There simply isn't any indication of this. Should we say that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus, actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his own body and blood?  That would be ridiculous."

Third point…

"Third - there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements

We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements. The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass. Catholicism says, "Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone.“1 Where is the worship given the sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there.”


"Fourth - the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion

The Mass is supposed to be a re-sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, the body and blood represented in the Mass become the broken body and shed blood of Christ. In other words, they represent the crucifixion ordeal. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread it became His actual sacrificial body – even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine that it became His actual sacrificial blood – even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all."


"Fifth -the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?
“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,” (Lev. 17:14).
Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ."


Alms -
This tract will refute all of those points:

God bless you, friend.



"Sixth - It is a violation of the incarnation

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This “became flesh” involves what is known as the hypostatic Union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time and He will forever be God and man.
Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time, is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man – since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.
But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always, even to the ends of the earth? Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere? No, this is not what is stated.
The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ. It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature. It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent, not in His human nature, but in His divine nature.
To make this more clear, let’s look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum.
• John 17:5, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”
• John 3:13,"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man."
Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. He also claims to have descended from heaven. But how could these be true since He is a man? The answer is because the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven. But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception. Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union). It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another – the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite. If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity. This means that He must be localized and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture. "


Finally, Seventh…

"Seventh - the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ

The Bible tells us:
"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, (Heb. 10:10-14).
In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith, not by a ceremony. "


Alms -
Here is what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the subject.
Makes you wonder if they think they know more than the fathers, many of whom were tortured and butchered for their beliefs and SOME who were students of the apostles themselves.


Thanks very much. I’ll read it in a bit. :slight_smile:

And God bless you.


This is utter nonsense and easily refutable.
***“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life.” ***
**The is ONE person whose life it is GOOD for us to have in ourselves - JESUS. We’re SUPPOSED to have him with us, around us and IN us. **
We are not attempting to have a bull’s life in us or a goats life or that of an ox.
Also, what did Jesus say at the end of Matthew’s gospel?

Matt. 28:20 *- “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” *
Figuratively, spiritually AND PHYSICALLY present with us.


Tell that to St. Paul, who wrote:
**“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). **
***Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.***"
(1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
Doesn’t sound like your regular run-of-the-mill bread now does it?


Uhh, gee - didn’t Jesus walk through the door in the upper room on the night of the Resurrection? John 20:19

Didn’t he “appear” to 2 of his disciples on the road to Emmaus - then mysteriously “vanish”? Luke 24:13-35

Didn’t he walk on water" Matt 14:22-23

**Um, I never finished college but I’ve NEVER know a MERE human being do that. **You see, it’s because HE IS GOD and can do ANYTHING he pleases.
WHY are Protestants always trying to pidgeonhole God by mere human standards? Spiritual Pride?
Just asking . . .


Again, I would say to them, “Tell that to St. Paul, who wrote”:

***“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. ***
**Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. **
***For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. ***
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.” 1Cor. 11:26-30

Would he be saying that if it were simply "crackers and grape juice? Ummm . . . I don’t think so . . .


OK, I have posted this before, but here you go. This is something someone here on CAF posted. I thought it was an incredible bit of logical reasoning when it comes to Jesus’ words and meanings. I give the original poster all the credit for it. I only pass it on to share the wealth.

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he? Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

**“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” ** Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

I would recommend that you use this when discussing whether or not Christ was speaking literally about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Remember, all these instances come from the Gospel of John, so it would be difficult for them to argue that this is the style of writing of two or more different people. I would think it logical that John the Apostle would write in the same style throughout his Gospel, wouldn’t you?


Thanks so much irshmac adn elvisman. :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit