What Should All Christians Know about Transubstantiation?

Before my Catholic father asked my Lutheran mother to marry him, she had to commit to converting to Catholicism, and his family had to approve of her desire to do so (there had never been a Protestant on the Irish Catholic side of the family). There was only one thing that my mom couldn’t wrap her head around: transubstantiation. At first, she didn’t know what it was because she had never heard of it, but then, when it was described to her, she wasn’t sure if it was okay for a Lutheran from birth to believe in it.

She’s not the only one. It’s a contentious issue with arguments for and against, and this may be an example of God holding back the mystery until we get to heaven. But let’s take a closer look.

What Is Transubstantiation?

The Book of John tells us that shortly after Jesus provided food for 5,000+ people to eat, made from 5 loaves of bread and two fish, the crowd he fed kept following him. They were looking for more miracles from Him (and likely more food). He told them not to “work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (John 6:27). What followed was more discussion of Jesus being “the true bread from heaven” and “the bread of life,” and that anyone who came to Him would never be hungry or thirsty. The more declarations Jesus made about Himself, the more some began to take issue with what He was saying. They believed Him to be only the son of Joseph. They couldn’t understand that He could come down from heaven when they had seen Him growing up around them.

But then Jesus challenged them even further in John 6:51-58. He said, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:51). When they questioned that, he doubled down with “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Not to mention “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them” (John 6:56).

Jesus also spoke of the bread and wine at the Last Supper as being His body and blood that they were participating in. Christianity.com notes that Jesus establishing the Eucharist on the evening before his Crucifixion is a key New Testament event, described in four books of the New Testament (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:17-20; John 6:53-57) as well as one Pauline epistle (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

After His resurrection, the believers in the Book of Acts “devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). They knew the importance of remembering to celebrate the sharing of bread and wine by Jesus’ command at The Last Supper. In his Gospel Coalition article, Justin Taylor reports that by the first century A.D., Christian church services included a communion service very similar to what occurs in churches today. It wasn’t an option; it was the center of the worship service, as it is in Roman Catholic services today.

But more than sharing bread and wine as a memorial of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, the Roman Catholic Church has asserted since the first century that during a Eucharistic service, the physical matter of the bread and wine is changed into the physical matter of Jesus’ body and blood. So, in essence, the participant is taking Christ’s literal body and blood.

When Did Transubstantiation Become an Official Church Doctrine?

According to Christianity.com, although the belief and practice have been going on for centuries, its name came much later: “With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis, ‘change of being’; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, ‘change of substance,’ which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.” It wasn’t until The Council of Trent in 1652 that the act was officially named “transubstantiation.”

As with many tenets of the Roman Catholic Faith, the Protestant Reformation rejected the idea of transubstantiation, especially since the Catholic Church claimed that transubstantiation and partaking of communion had the power to forgive sins. Proto-reformer John Wycliffe taught a belief that the Eucharist becomes both bread and wine and spiritually becomes Christ’s flesh; after contributions by Martin Luther, this view became known as consubstantiation.

What Are the Arguments for Transubstantiation?

The argument for transubstantiation may be described as “Jesus said it, so believe it.” The Roman Catholic Church took Jesus at His words and didn’t believe He was speaking symbolically or metaphorically. If God is powerful enough to raise His Son from the dead, He is powerful enough to make sure Jesus’ declarations about His body and blood being a continual sacrifice remain true at each Eucharist.

According to Vatican II, the second Vatican council that took place between 1962-65, “the sacrament in which those who participate in it through holy Communion eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ, and thus receive grace, which is the beginning of eternal life, and the ‘medicine of immortality’ according to Our Lord's words: ‘The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.’”

However, transubstantiation is more respected by older communicants. Interestingly, according to the Pew Research Center, only one-third of Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation. Most younger Catholics believe it is just a symbol. They believe that although Jesus said it, He didn’t mean literally that we would drink his blood and eat his bread at each communion service.

What are the Arguments Against Transubstantiation?

Those who oppose transubstantiation believe that if we claim that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, then Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was not enough to reconcile us with God. In his Desiring God article, Reid Karr reports, “If, however, the bread and wine of the Eucharist indeed undergo a change of substance and become the real body and blood of Christ, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is neither sufficient nor final; instead, it is continually re-presented and made present. Thus, transubstantiation undermines the clear teachings of Scripture.”

Another argument against transubstantiation is that the Catholic view involves more than just a remembrance of Jesus by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. They also contend (as mentioned in the Vatican II statement) that Communion is a means of obtaining God’s grace and receiving the promise of eternal life. In other words, taking Communion puts you in a right relationship with God. That belief goes against John 3:16, which states that God sent His son into the world and that whoever believes in Him has everlasting life. Should we be adding more to that?

What Can Protestants Learn from Transubstantiation?

I believe that Protestants can learn a few critical things from transubstantiation.

First, it reminds us of the importance of reading what Jesus said about his body and blood and asking the Holy Spirit to clarify the matter. Jesus said that without eating his flesh and drinking His blood, we would not have life within us. Does that mean we would not have abundant life here on earth and wouldn’t abide in Him? Or did He really mean that we forfeit eternal life if we don’t participate in the Eucharist? A deeper study will show there are countless arguments for and against transubstantiation. Whatever we believe about it, it’s an important topic to consider.

Second, even if you don’t believe in it, transubstantiation elevates the importance of communion. We can appreciate that if someone truly believes they are taking Christ’s tangible body and blood during the Eucharist, they take the act much more seriously. That reverence can remind us to follow other verses about communion’s seriousness—such as 1 Corinthians 11:28, which says that anyone who participates in communion must examine themselves beforehand, confess sin, and take it with reverence and awe. We must do this whether we see communion as taking Christ’s flesh or a more symbolic remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. In doing so, we remember to praise and thank Jesus for all He has done for us by going through a torturous sacrificial death.

Finally, it can teach Protestants that God is powerful enough to do anything. As mentioned above, transubstantiation would seem to make Jesus’ sacrifice not final. Still, God’s power to do it is not in question. If He wanted to make the bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood at each Eucharist, He could.

This mystery can be argued until we all get home to heaven. We don’t know Christ's mind, so perhaps the way He is present with us when we celebrate His last supper is completely different from what the human mind can understand. One thing is for certain: We won’t be thinking about this debate when we are sharing the marriage supper of the Lamb!

Photo Credit:©Robert Cheaib/Pixabay

Mary Oelerich-Meyer is a Chicago-area freelance writer and copy editor who prayed for years for a way to write about and for the Lord. She spent 20 years writing for area healthcare organizations, interviewing doctors and clinical professionals and writing more than 1,500 articles in addition to marketing collateral materials. Important work, but not what she felt called to do. She is grateful for any opportunity to share the Lord in her writing and editing, believing that life is too short to write about anything else. Previously she served as Marketing Communications Director for a large healthcare system. She holds a B.A. in International Business and Marketing from Cornell College (the original Cornell!) When not researching or writing, she loves to spend time with her writer daughter, granddaughter, rescue doggie and husband (not always in that order).