Do the Elements Change into Jesus’ Flesh and Blood?

This week I want us to take a look at a more theological topic, but one that is very important – namely, do the elements of the Lord’s Supper change into the physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

The Roman Catholic answer to that question was defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215),

[Jesus’] body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood (Constitution 1).

It was accepted as binding dogma at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) in response to the Reformation.

In other words, the Roman Catholic church teaches that the substance of the bread is wholly changed into the substance of Christ’s body, and the substance of the wine is wholly changed into the substance of His blood. Meanwhile, the “accidents” (appearance/form) of the elements remains bread and wine. So it looks like bread and wine, smells like it, tastes like it, but the essence has changed into Christ’s body and blood.

This may seem like very abstract and speculative, but the understanding of the Lord’s Supper was near the very heart of the Reformation. In fact, the Roman Catholic church pronounced an anathema on anyone who denied Transubstantiation! So what are we to make of it?

On the face of it, the Roman Catholic view seems somewhat attractive. After all, didn’t Jesus say, “this is my body” and “this is my blood”?

But, as is often the case, first glances may be only surface level. Reformed theologians have leveled both common sense, biblical, and philosophical arguments against Transubstantiation.

First, common sense teaches us that transubstantiation is not correct. Consider this, when Jesus instituted the Supper with His disciples, His they could see His physical body right there with them. Given that they could see and touch Jesus’ physical body as He said, “this is my body,” it would have been very natural for them to understand it symbolically (the bread and cup are signs) and very unnatural for them to understand it as the Roman Catholic doctrine teaches.

Second, there are many places in the Bible where “is” does not mean what the Roman Catholics make it mean. For example, Jesus says, “I am the door” (John 10:9) and “I am the vine” (John 15:5). Moreover, Roman Catholic theologians have to admit this metaphorical sense of “is” even within the context of the institution of the supper itself, because Jesus does not say, “This wine is my blood…” but calls the cup the blood of the covenant (Matt. 26:28).

Third, philosophically, transubstantiation has significant problems which stem from the way it divorces how a thing appears (accidents) from what it really is (substance). In other words, by claiming that the substance of the element changes while the accidents stay the same, the Roman Catholic position allows for accidents to exist independently of any connection to a substance. This severs the connection between how we perceive a thing and what it really is. It allows for something to appear in every possible way to be one thing (bread and wine) and yet really to be something totally different (flesh and blood). If that is possible, we cannot ever truly know what anything is, because it could appear in every way to be one thing and yet in reality be something wholly different.

There is much more we could say – treatises have been written on this subject – but I hope this article helps clarify a difficult topic. I’ll close with our Statement of Faith,

The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of Christ’s death. The bread and cup are symbols of His body and blood, which God uses to draw us into spiritual communion with our crucified, risen Savior.