Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Yeah, I know Catholic theology pretty well. The idea is that a living authority is necessary to keep the unity. I was pointing out the irony of two things: your slight on something that is more official in favor of a video blog and the difficulty in figuring out to understand that darn magisterial living authority. We are all fallible interpreters of some infallible source and we all come to varying conclusions.

Fun stuff.

” We are all fallible interpreters of some infallible source and we all come to varying conclusions.”

Maybe so, but some of those infallible sources can talk back and might even excommunicate you! (;

I do appreciate all your knowledge, and I’ve appreciated your comments. (:

Wait. You can talk to the Pope???!! You can get an infallible statement from him about this issue? Please call him and let us know what he says!

😉

21 ecumenical councils in 2000 years and three or four infallible statements by the man hardly qualify for “talking back” to us. And once they do finally talk, everyone debates endlessly what they meant (e.g. V2). I love V2 as it, in my interpretation, undoes just about 1/2 of the missteps of Trent. But. . . Interpretations are interpretations.

And I definitely appreciate you. All your comments are always so representative of the spirit of this blog. I can’t wait for glory where we sit down are see how much we were both wrong about, but glorify the God-man whom we know truly but not fully.

Indeed nice to see/hear “Irene” once again! We can always learn much from this ‘RC’! 🙂

In my opinion, this subject is a real historical as well as a biblical-theological one. We must do our homework here! This is where the Greco-Roman of St. Paul surely matters, i.e. the “musterion” (Gk.) is Revelation, and not just something “hidden”!

Michael: “The ironic thing in this school is that it is actually easier to make it to heaven by remaining a Protestant than it is by becoming Catholic!”

Not necessarily; if Catholic doctrine is true, and the explanation offered by Catholic Answers is true, the only people who can be excommunicated from the Church are people who were already properly inducted into the Church, therefore who are people God will certainly save from their sins eventually.

In effect, the explanation from Catholic Answers means that an anathema hands unrepentant Catholics over to purgatory, not to hell. Protestants may go to purgatory, too, or to hell, depending on various circumstances, but can’t be anathematized and excom’d (because they haven’t been inducted into the fullness of the Church yet).

An particular excom’d Catholic might not make it into heaven as easy as this or that more devout Protestant Christian, but he’s certainly going to get there eventually (per RCC doctrine), whereas a particular Protestant Christian might not.

Thus St. Paul expects the Stepmom-Sleeping Guy from 1 Corinthians to be saved in the Day of the Lord to come eventually even if his flesh is destroyed first by being handed over to Satan; or as another example, Heb 10 involves people who have tasted the good things of the Spirit (and so who demonstrate the intention of the Spirit to save them from sin) being handed over to God for chastising vindication parallel to what God intends for the rebel Jews in Deut 32 (cited by the Hebraist): after they’ve been destroyed in the Day of the Lord to come, until they are neither slave nor free (a euphamism for being killed insofar as it is possible to kill anyone), the rebels will finally learn better, repent and be restored to fellowship with the Lord and with the righteous. Thus God vindicates even His rebel people.

(This fits Christian universalism, too, of course, but could also fit varieties of Calvinistic soteriology.)

[…] Patton at Parchment and Pen gives a good explanation of Christ’s presence in this post on the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In refutation of this doctrine, which proclaims that the Eucharist represents the real presence of […]

Well, again, besides the fact that the anathemas in question were written at Trent, directly to the Protestant issue, and besides the fact that to be outside the church there is no salvation, and besides the fact that since V2 we are seen as part of the church, just separated bretheren, it is easier, from my studies, to get into heaven as a Protestant since we cannot possibly fit the bill for the mortal sins that send so many Catholics down the tube (disagreement in doctrine, missing Mass without a valid excuse, use of birth control, etc). All of these I do. But I am covered since one qualification is that one has to know and believe it is a mortal sin before they commit it. I never will. So I am cool (literally). But the Catholic (about 75% of whom take birth control or disagree with the Church on the matter) are in mortal sin which kills the grace of God in their soul. So they have to make sure they make it to a preist. I don’t.

So, if Catholicism is true, I am better off being a Protestant.

But, this is not the issue of this thread. Soon, I will write on this issue specifically. I have some really good material on this. I even have some very significant admissions that this is true from Catholic apologists. How do they respond? You will just have to wait and see.

Michael: “You must understand first that sola Scriptura is a doctrine that says that Scripture is the ultimate trump card. So if Scripture is not clear or is against this (which I think it is), then it is the norm that norms which is not normed.”

But Michael…. didn’t we have discussions a while back where you said tradition is supposed to be authoritative? Unless scripture flat out says the traditional position is wrong, you have to accept it, or else rewrite a long history of your position on the value of tradition. Here we are again with your inconsistency, on one hand saying how tradition is an authority, and on the other hand throwing it under the bus even when it is as unanimous as it is on this issue. Give us the unarguable, incontrovertible verse for your position, or else it fails. Or else finally admit that tradition is utterly devoid of authority.

“Do you accept everything the Fathers said? (And, yes, this is a set up).”

But Michael… as far as I see, there is no more certain witness to a doctrine than on this issue. This is not some side issue that one or two random fathers “got wrong”. This is pretty central to a big portion of the fathers, and to historical Christian theology. So all your talk about the authority of tradition is shown to be nonsense. If you want to throw tradition under the bus, be my guest, but be consistent about it. Don’t claim tradition has authority, but then reject it when it is most clear.

This is a thoughtful article, thank you. I agree with your conclusions and all your points, except point 3: “It does not take Christ literally enough (2).

In Hebrew literature “cup” was an idiom/metaphor for one’s destiny or future. In this metaphor, it was the contents of the cup which were under scrutiny. (See Psalm 11:6 for a cursed cup, and Psalm 16:5 for a cup of blessing). So, when Jesus speaks of the cup, it seems rather likely that he is using this Hebrew understanding and, even taken “literally” is referring to the contents of the cup.

Again, I agree with your conclusions, but I don’t think point 3 will get you there.

Michael: {{It is one thing to read interesting theological loopholes to get out of the pickle, but when you read—and I mean really read—church history focusing on primary documents, this change but not really idea quickly loses its viability.}}

Obviously I (currently) agree or else I wouldn’t be (currently) Protestant. But I thought the post was about the interesting theology, not about complaints on the RCC not being consistent about what counts as infallible teaching of faith and morals.

John: {{But Michael…. didn’t we have discussions a while back where you said tradition is supposed to be authoritative? Unless scripture flat out says the traditional position is wrong, you have to accept it, or else rewrite a long history of your position on the value of tradition. […] [A]s far as I see, there is no more certain witness to a doctrine than on this issue. This is not some side issue that one or two random fathers “got wrong”. This is pretty central to a big portion of the fathers, and to historical Christian theology.}}

Yep, I remember those discussions, too. And it isn’t like the scriptures CLEARLY say transsub is false, or CLEARLY say that some other theory about the Lord’s Supper is clearly true. (By contrast, there is at least a feasible prima facie case that the scriptures clearly teach hopeless punishment of one or another kind.)

I also recall you not long ago writing that where you yourself couldn’t see how the scriptural testimony you accepted added up theologically, you were prepared to accept the doctrines anyway as being something no one could even in principle rationally accept and to even try to understand would be heresy. Why could RCCs not just as validly fall back on the same position (as in fact they historically have on occasion), at least for self-defense on their doctrines if not to accuse you of heresy for using your “human reason” to oppose the mysterious truth of their doctrines?

Greg(Tiribulus) asked: ” Am I deluding myself with my life that is utterly consumed and defined by Jesus Christ? Is it all a lie?.”

No, but you are missing out. There is more to receive than what you already have. I used to be a devout Lutheran and thought I was on the right track in my faith. It turned out, it wasn’t so much that I was on the wrong track, but that I was limiting Him.
Here’s my own dumb little analogy. Being a Protestant was like holding a snowcone. You have to be careful how you hold it. Don’t let it melt or drip out the bottom. It was like you had to guard this special thing. You had this special theology of the 3 solas, Always filtering new ideas and methods through them. Like you were a guard for the glory of God! Be careful! Never let anything overshadow God’s Work and His Glory.
But then it was like He dragged me out the door. If the Protestant faith was like a snowcone, the Catholic faith is like being outside in a beautiful snowfall. God didn’t need me to protect his glory. He wanted me to experience his glory. Not crude little shavings of frozen water that fit in a paper cup, but infinite beautiful snowflakes, each one a marvelous perfection. Not a faith I could hold in my hand, but a faith that enveloped me. Not a faith that depended upon me to keep it pure and intact, but a faith that came from far above me. So, now I guess you could say I am making snow angels. And I know God is smiling at me. My snowcone lies abandoned on the ground.

About this separated brethren thing: don’t let it get you too at ease. I had never heard the term “illegitimate churches” Michael referred to earlier in this thread, but I have heard the term “ecclesiastical communities” to refer to Protestant “churches”. Only the Eastern Orthodox, that I am aware of, is referred to as “the other lung of THE CHURCH”.

I am not sure what you all are getting at about tradition. Tradition is simply “teaching.” Scripture is written tradition and the interpretation of Scripture is unwritten tradition.

I believe the Scriptures clearly teach that Transubstantiation is wrong just as I do think they teach that papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, and purgatory are wrong. They are all just absent. Therefore, they cannot be a part of the regula fide guide which the Holy Spirit has tought everywhere always and by all throughout the church. Indeed, they are not. Just step into Irenaeus as you will find this from the beginning. So the regula fide (tradition) stands gaurd over the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit is in the heart of believers leading them to a proper interpretation of the Scriptures when the doctrine is held always, everywhere, and by all. This way, someone cannot come in 2000 years later and say that they have discovered something essential which has never been held.

As well. everyone has authoritative tradition. The one who says that tradition plays no part, only Scripture is a tradition itself! “No creed but the Bible” is a creed!!

Is there any way to like my own post? That last one was good!

I appreciate the collective scholarship of the comments above. Many of us would spend hours to examine what you have at your fingertips.Yet I wonder if this issue cannot be resolved by one with ordinary skills, by a correct discernment of the scriptures?
Jesus said that he would send the Comforter (Holy Spirit) after he is gone, indicating that he will not return to earth in bodily form until certain criteria are met, including Israel’s confession, etc. On the other hand, he said that he would always be with us and in us. If he is with us and the HS is within us, there is no necessity for him to manifest in the inanimate bread and wine. I submit that such a thing is a subversion of his person and his divinity.

He also said, “This IS my body…this IS my blood.”

And He said, “Whoever does not eat my body and drink my blood, has no life in them.”

Michael: “You must understand first that sola Scriptura is a doctrine that says that Scripture is the ultimate trump card. So if Scripture is not clear or is against this (which I think it is), then it is the norm that norms which is not normed. ”

But Michael… when does tradition have the authority which you claim it does? If we consider all the possible combinations: scripture clear/unclear tradition clear/unclear, when exactly does tradition have authority? I would have thought the little gap you leave for it would be scripture unclear, tradition clear. If you don’t leave that gap, when does tradition have ANY authority? WHEN? This is the question I keep asking you.

“The Pharisees had in their tradition for many many years that spitting on the ground on Sunday was a violation of the sabbath as it could lead to plowing. Christ came in an over turned many of their traditions.”

Do you actually think these situations are comparable? I don’t think they are, but assuming they are, what possible authority can you leave for tradition with such a negative view of it?

“But more importantly, it is not really presence that I am arguing against. It is the real PHYSICAL presence which (and don’t miss this) must be believed in order to keep from being anathematized. This is uniquely a Roman Catholic dogma and it is this which all the arguments push back on.”

What the RCC anathematises is irrelevant to the truth of this doctrine. And I don’t think this doctrine is uniquely RCC. I know Orthodox don’t think the presence is “spiritual”. I don’t think Lutherans or high Anglicans do either. And “body” and “blood” are distinctively physical attributes of the human being, not spiritual attributes. If you’re going to accept any presence, its the physical that the bible talks of. Why accept spiritual presence?

“John’s Gospel was the second most distributed Gospel in the early church. Most people did not have even one Gospel.”

That is irrelevant to sound exegesis. Nobody counts distribution as a means of interpreting an author.

John is very acontextual. Even if you look at chapter 1, it dives into things that are meaningless to the new reader. In the beginning was “the word”. What word? What is that about? You would have no idea if you weren’t a Christian already.

” One does not even have to read between the lines to see that John though his message was sufficient.”

You’re going on again about the RCC’s anathemas. Which are irrelevant to the truth of this doctrine.

BTW, if we’re going to take whatever can be found in each and every gospel account as definitive of the true and essential gospel, I’m not seeing salvation by faith alone in the gospels. Where is it in Matthew? Can you prove it definitively from Matthew in a debate without other books? If not, doesn’t the Protestant reason for being vanish?

Actually the Orthodox believe in the real physical presence, they just don’t accept Rome’s definition of it.

When you say that this is irrelevant, you are missing the point of this post. The reason why this particular argument about John is crucial is because Rome’s abiding anathema is one of my main concerns here. It may not be yours, but the post must determine what arguments are relevant.

Concerning the importance of tradition in my spiritual epistemology, I have an extremely high view. But I have written so much on this throught the years I would not know how to begin to express it. The best I can do now (since I unfortunately don’t have the time to engage in my own blog comments much—my engagement as of late has been active, bit this is not the norm), I will have to punt to another very extensive post found here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/10/evangelicals-we-can-and-we-must-distinguish-between-essentials-and-non-essentials-better/

I hope this helps.

““John’s Gospel was the second most distributed Gospel in the early church. Most people did not have even one Gospel.”

That is irrelevant to sound exegesis. Nobody counts distribution as a means of interpreting an author.”

That is quite a definitive statement. You probably ought to ask what relevance this has rather than making such an assertive and dismissive assumption.

This is very relevant so long as you know what I mean. It is used to support the understanding that historically, when we look at distribution and ownership of these books, most people did not have much. They may have had one or two works available to them. Matthew was the most widely distributed. John, when writing, was not writing assuming that people had already heard this Gospel. This is evidenced in his words (“many other things Christ said and did, but these have been written so that you might believe…” It was not a Christian community he was writing to. The distribution of the manuscripts shows how this book was carried (much of the time by itself) as an all inclusive work (a lot like many missionaries do today). This fits a late date and helps to understand and affirm that the purpose of the work was not to append the other Gospels.

This is all part of exegesis. You must look toward everything, even the context of understanding which the people had to which he was writing to. It help understand the assumptions (if any) toward Christ, the Gospel, the church, and, in this case, the Lord’ s table that John expected the people to have.

In short, John’s exclusion of the Lord’s table narrative is very important for one who claims that right practice and a literal belief in this doctrine is essential for one’s salvation.

Again, this is not me alone saying this. It is often thought that John’s Gospel, due to the absence of the Lord’s table, is, in part, a polemic against such abuses in his day. I am not sure that I believe this. But it is incredibly curious that he would leave it out. I don’t even believe in the real presence nor that it is necessary for salvation, and I am uncomfortable having John leave it out! And, had he included it, it adds nothing to the argument. But its exclusion is quite significant in my opinion.

And “the word” is the Logos. It is actually a very Greek concept that Christians adopted. John’s use of it is evidence, actually, that he was not writing to Christians. Look up the philosophical context for “logos” and you will see what I mean.

But I am glad you are thinking things through. I would just approach this with questions as it does not seem as though you should or can be so definitive about things you speaking.

I never said that the doctrine of salvation by faith alone was essential for salvation.

However, John’s Gospel only mentions faith leading to life. Therefore, John’s Gospel does teach justification by faith alone very clearly. For example, if you were sick and dying and a doctor gave you one bottle of medicine and said that this will heal you, you would not assume that he meant that you were suppose to take two medicines. The absence of any other remedy is a strong argument. In this case, an argument from silence is pretty good.

So, again, John’s lack of inclusion of the Lord’s Supper narrative is deafening.

Actually the Orthodox believe in the real physical presence, they just don’t accept Rome’s definition of it.

But in the OP you said:

Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial

…so shouldn’t you want to refute the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran AND Anglican notions of the Real Presence – not just quibble with Aquinas, Trent, and Transubstantiation?

Do you cut the others slack because they don’t use the word “anathema”?

How is it possible that Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant (high church) all misunderstood (and in pretty much the same way) what was really going on at the Last Supper?

Michael, you said on a previous comment–

“I have yet to find an exegetical commentator who comes to these conclusions, even about John 6, liberal or conservative. One must overlay their pre concluded position to make this work IMO.”

and then in the thread on rewards in heaven, you said gave an explanation of what an exegetical commentator is–
“But an exegetical commentary is focused on historical-grammatico hermeneutics. In other words, they are commentaries which seek to understand the author’s intent and, often, leave broader theological implications and influences aside. Grammar, historical background, context of the argument, attitude of the writer, literature, and original languages are all important here.”

Would you also call this a historical-critical commentator, or do I misunderstand?

John was writing to a community with a common history and their own traditions. If not established Christians, then at least Jews, right? There are so many allusions to Jewish history.

So why depend on an exegetical commentator for evidence of the Eucharist in John, when the book wasn’t written for them? Wouldn’t it make the most sense to put the most stock in a converted Jewish commentator (if you could find one)?

Why depend on a non-Christian interpretation in order to derive Christian meaning?

You list as a major reason for not believeing in Eucharist the absence of explicit mention in John. You say you don’t see Eucharist in John because exegetical commentators don’t. At the same time, you are dismissing the Christian fathers who did see it. They saw it not just in oral tradition, but there inside the book of John.

For example, what do you think John meant by recording Jesus as Lamb of God?

Michael,

As a Protestant considering Catholicism, I was interested in your #5 objection and what it could mean for transubstantiation.

Since this was a complex objection, I asked Bryan Cross over at the Called to Communion blog his thoughts on it, and he pointed me to a comment he had written about it recently in response to RC Sproul raising the same objection.

So here is that link: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/

It is comment #185.

Michael, it’d be nice to see you post your objections in less-friendly forums and see how they hold up. It’s always more interesting to see equals battle then non-equals.

” Only the Catholics dogmatize that it is essential for salvaion. So, only one thing at a time. ”

This whole post is not “one thing at a time” because it confuses the doctrine with RCC position about its importance. But if you want to get technical, I don’t think RCC says believing it is essential for salvation ( except in so far as RCC says you need to believe everything it says ). But let me ask you this: is the lord’s supper an essential part of the Christian faith? Or is it an optional extra for churches to do. If you say essential, then your own argument about john’s ( supposed ) omission comes crashing on your head just as hard. If you say it’s not essential to Christianity, I’d like to hear your reasoning, and if it allows the rest of the faith to be disposed of too.

God’s grace on your teaching schedule, Michael! {g}

Michael: “I believe the Scriptures clearly teach that Transubstantiation is wrong just as I do think they teach that papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, and purgatory are wrong. They are all just absent. Therefore, they cannot be a part of the regula fide guide which the Holy Spirit has tought everywhere always and by all throughout the church.”

Now that’s just confusion of thought (maybe from being tired). Even if an absent doctrine (or an undeveloped seed doctrine as you later allow transsub to be) cannot be a part of the regular fide guide which the Holy Spirit has taught everywhere always and by all throughout the church, that isn’t the same as scripture teaching clearly against it. Scripture can only clearly teach against it by clearly teaching something else instead: clearly teaching against is a positive action in itself.

And if you thought the scriptures actually did teach clearly against it, you would have cited what the scriptures clearly teach differently on the topic, instead of appealing to what the absence of the doctrine (at least clearly 😉 ) in the scriptures mean.

But if the doctrine is a seed doctrine brought out by centuries of reflection on what the scriptures do teach — much like the fully developed trinitarian doctrine set! — then that’s obviously another category again, and not a category to be lightly dismissed.

Do I believe everything the church fathers taught?

That’s an impossibility, because they were not unanimous on all points. The canon of Scripture is a good example.

Do good teaching about Catholicism and Orthodoxy! Saint Peter pray for us! (:

John, “essential” in what way? It’s essential for ecclesiology, something John was not dealing with. John was dealing with salvation.

Not quite the pickle you thought, eh? 🙂

You need to check out the newest post.

Quick post before bed. 🙂

Jason, I did not understand a word you said. (Maybe its because your tired?)

So, Irene, you are saying there are some traditions you believe and some you don’t?

How do you test which ones are right and which are wrong? Well, as a good Catholic, you rely on your fallible interpretation of the magisterium. I rely on my fallible interpretation of the Scriptures and other church traditions, with the Scripture being the ultimate source.

Greg, I agree. I don’t think that John six has anything to do with the Eucharist either. We just talked about that last week on Theology Unplugged. It certainly would not make any sense to John’s audience if it did.

Okay, I really am done. I just love discussing this too much. :/)

Btw: my teaching on Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was quit a bit of fun. These posts help me to get energized.

Greg,

Sproul is no mean theologian. He seems to have a pretty good handle on Roman Catholic docrine and the problem he presents is substantial. Monophysitism (post-resurrection) is the elephant in the room. The fact that Chalcedon did not feel it nedessary to handle this problem is telling that they did not have the same understanding as Rome today. The Aristotilian distinctions don’t do anything as it is not just peices of Christ that are present on countless places, but “the whole of Christ,” not that that makes too much a difference anyway. R

Michael,
You wrote (in response to John’s excellent point in #39 this page 2)–
“John, “essential” in what way? It’s essential for ecclesiology, something John was not dealing with. John was dealing with salvation.”

I think John’s point is still valid because your answer implies that
1)ecclesiology is non-essential to salvation
2)there is a hard line bewteen ecclesiology and salvation
3)the Eucharist only falls under ecclesiology, not under salvation

These three reasons come from the theological lens with which you are viewing John. Through this lens you arrive at your theological conclusion: John doesn’t (you say) mention the Eucharist, so it is nonessential for salvation.

————-
Michael, you also said,

“Well, as a good Catholic, you rely on your fallible interpretation of the magisterium. I rely on my fallible interpretation of the Scriptures and other church traditions, with the Scripture being the ultimate source.”

My fallible interpretation of the magisterium gives me an infallible, alphabetized and spell checked list of the inspired books. Does your fallible interpretation of the Scriptures give you one?
(I’ve always wondered how Protestants can claim to do canonical exegisis, or “read the Scriptures as a whole” as they are so fond of saying, with a fallible canon.)
You can’t seriously tell me there’s no difference between the Magisterium and the Scriptures. In fact, isn’t that what this whole post is about? The Magisterium going beyond the Scriptures?

It certainly would not make any sense to John’s audience if it did.

So, John’s audience got it right, but then somehow things ran off the rails such that the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican churches have it all wrong to this day.

Can you pinpoint the time/event when that happened? Was there a time in the very early Church when some Christians will had it right and others had the Catholic view? Shouldn’t there be writings of the early church that address and debunk what became the Catholic misunderstanding?

Irene,

Issues of ecclesiology are essential for salvation? Which ones? Church government? Liturgy? How to elect a new pope? Can’t be there as all of these have changed. And it can’t be the Lords supper since John leaves it out

And your fallible interpretation and belief in the church does not really give you an infallible canon since your belief in such is fallible. Again, since we both start with the real possibility that we can both be wrong (you about the church and me about the Bible) each of us has to deal with fallibility. I just take out the middle man. But it is no different. We both have our fallible interpretations and beliefs.

The Catholic Church is the only one who says that it is essential to believe and practice right to be saved.

We are all going around and around in circles.

I don’t think anyone has anything else to add that will be new or keep us moving forward.

The OP is clear to me and is strong: the Bible does not teach the Transubstantiation. I have not seen any of the five points answered.

We probably better let this one go as I cannot allow you all to waste time having the same discussion over and over. It has been good though.

Excrement.
Argumentum ad absurdum

and

reductio ad absurdum

Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.

Theology, logic, Bible doctrine , the words of Paul and the words of Jesus flow off the catholics back faster than water through a sieve.

But what shocks the average catholic back into reality is the simple question:

“Where does the body and blood of Christ go after 12-24 hours?”

Does their wafer god get defecated?

This may seem like shocking, disrespectful and out of bounds. BUT THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION ONE CAN COME TO.

ICorinthians 11 gives the proper understanding of the Lords Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

And it is no coincidence that Paul says : 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

The heresy of transubstantiation helps us to see the ABSURDITY of such a doctrine.

“Does their wafer god get defecated?”

Catholics have dealt with this question. I forget the official answer, but it ceases to be the body and blood when it is digested, or after 24 hours or something. I forget the details, but this is a really bad argument.

Your response is “the really bad arguement”.
We are dealing with the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the best argument that can be proffered is that it ceases to be body and blood (the blood of God manifest in the flesh) or after 24 hours OR SOMETHING!!!!!!

Where is any of this absurdity found in the scriptures?

Sad, deceived, heresy and an offense to the Great God who formed all things.

If you ask an obscure question, why must the answer be in the scriptures? The point is, there are possible speculative answers. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum failed. If there is a possible answer that is not absurd, then your argument fails, because it is not reductio ad absurdum. You’re welcome for the logic lesson.

But Greg, it is not unavoidable that “God gets defecated”, ergo your objection has no weight.

And your question is obscure in that it has no bearing on anything of significance. What happens to it ultimately affects nothing, ergo, it doesn’t matter.

Jesus spoke of this duality of our human nature. What goes into a man (through his stomach) passes out into the drain. His point being that what we eat does not defile us, and by extention, sanctify us, either. That comes by Spirit.
Jesus’ words about eating his flesh were not taken well by many who heard him, and yet we find no explanation nor example of its fulfillment except at the Last Supper. The Last Supper was a unique event. What he asked us to do is remember him by reenacting it. His body is in Heaven now, and in fact we as the church are called his body, also.
The apostles made faith, repentence, and public confession the requisites for membership, and baptism after. There is no mention of the Lord’s supper as a requisite for salvation.

When the host no longer appears as bread, it is no longer Jesus. This is why there is a 15 minute fast after Communion.

“There is no mention of the Lord’s supper as a requisite for salvation.”

Jesus said to them, “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.”

It’s all a matter of perspective and interpretation isn’t it.

Also, Paul said our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, therefore let us “keep the feast”.

And the first Christians “broke bread” together.

Well, something as important as salvation has an authoritative answer, not just a matter of perspective. Jesus mentions being born again and salvation by faith in John 3:16 and many other places. “Whosoever” means everyone, but he never said we all must eat his physical flesh to have life. Paul spoke specifically in 1 Cor. About declaring the Lord’s death by the bread and cup. It is a special ritual we keep in the assembly as communion with him. Yet there is no mention there about the bread physically becoming human flesh. Paul says we are all one body in Christ.