Transubstantiation
The
theory accepted by Rome as a dogma in 1215, in an attempt to explain the
statements of Christ: "This is my body" and "This is my
blood" (Mark 14:22, 24) as applied to the bread and wine of the Lord's
Supper. It is insisted that the "is" must be taken with the strictest
literalism. But to our senses the bread and wine seem to remain exactly as they
were even when consecrated. There is no perceptible miracle of transformation.
The explanation is found in terms of a distinction between the socalled substance
(or true reality) and the accidents (the specific, perceptible
characteristics). The latter remain, but the former, i.e., the substance of
bread and wine, is changed into that of the body and blood of Christ. This
carries with it many serious consequences. If Christ is substantially present,
it is natural that the elements should be adored. It can also be claimed that
he is received by all who communicate, whether rightly to salvation or wrongly
to perdition. There also arises the idea of a propitiatory immolation of Christ
for the temporal penalties of sin, with all the associated scandals of private
masses. The weaknesses of the theory are obvious. It is not scriptural. On
sharper analysis it does not even explain the dominical statements. It contradicts
the true biblical account of Christ's presence. It has no secure patristic
backing. It stands or falls with a particular philosophical understanding. It
destroys the true nature of a sacrament. And it certainly perverts its proper
use and gives rise to dangerous superstitions inimical to evangelical faith.