Why don't Protestants believe in transubstantiation?

Question

I'm a Christian, but I grew up Catholic and swtiched to non-denominational. But I've always wondered why Protestants had such a big problem with transubstantiation (when God performs a miracle through the priest, bringing the presense of Jesus into the bread and wine - body and blood of Christ). I mean, can't God do anything he wants??? Last time I checked nothing is impossible through God. I don't mean to offend anyone tho...just need some educated answers or theories. Please, no christian bashing atheists...I want to hear from Christians!

Answer 1

I am a christian. I don't believe in transubstantiation. I find those items used in communion to be symbols only. Although I don't consider them to be the "actual" body parts and blood I do consider the bread and wine served to be blessed. I am not prepared to say with a definitive statement that I am right and others are wrong. I don't like having any contradicting passages of scriptures and there are passages that say we are not to drink blood. I can't rationalize a God who gives me that commandment and then develops a ritual in which I must do that very thing. So for my analytical mind I need to see those items as symbolic only. As a final thought let me say that don't be to concerned about what others believe on this issue but rather what is in your heart and how it affects your relationship with God. Answered in love as your brother in Christ.

Answer 2

I can offer three reasons, from the perspective of having been in am evangelical Protestant tradition before coming home to the Catholic Church.

First, the Blessed Sacrament is -- well, a sacrament. For some reason most of Protestantism classifies sacraments as "works" (of men -- completely missing the fact that the work done through them is that of the Holy Spirit), and since they have an allergy to that word anywhere in the near vicinity of the word "salvation", they scrupulously avoid and disclaim *all* sacraments. Of the seven sacraments of the Church, only two remain in evangelical protestantism -- baptism and "communion" -- and these both in the form of symbolic ordinances that frankly have no meaning to them beyond the inescapable fact that Christ said they were to be done. (I believe this comes under the heading of "going through the motions", which was my distinct impression while still in an evangelical church -- unfortunately, or fortunately for me as it turned out, what I read in the Bible and what I was told about these watered-down remembrances didn't add up.)

Second, and I believe this is more insidious among fundamentalists, is the tendency to limit God to doing what they can perceive with their own senses and their own reasoning. They apply eisegesis rather than exegesis to Scripture. But in the case of the Eucharist which Christ instituted, the language and His intent is so clear and unambiguous that one must fall back on such things as "the word 'transsubstantiation' isn't in the Bible" to defend its reduction to symbolism, while at the same time insisting that elsewhere -- always selectively -- the Bible is to be taken literally. (I often hear from the same people about the "rapture". Also not in the Bible, and an erroneous interpretation to boot.)

The third reason has already been mentioned: Recognizing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist would mean that the Church was right about this all along ... and therefore if they believed this, and received Communion on that basis, they would be "in communion" with the very Church from which they most carefully and at times vehemently separate themselves.

Answer 3

Of course God is All Powerful & He can do whatever He wants. We at the Baptist church look at it as symbolic, as the Catholics, if you research they actually believe that it becomes Jesus flesh. We just believe that God doesn't preform these miracles (not that He can't) and that the priest is held up way to high, like a false idol. In the Bible it clearly states that no one can take away your sins, but for God. This is a personal thing between us and God, we are not to go ramble them to a priest. That gives the false assumption to people that he can do powers that God can, when he absolutely cannot. Jesus said this is my body eat, this is my blood shed for you.When he did this at the first supper it was wine and bread. Symbolic. So why would that change? We believe it is just crackers and juice, symbolic. It is wonderful, but not really his blood and body.

Answer 4

in case you do the RCIA course it frequently starts off in September till Easter while converts are won into the Church on the Easter Vigil. it frequently is composed of one assembly each and every week for greater or less an hour and a 0.5, which comprise Catholics who choose to check greater and non Catholics who're thinking if the Catholic faith is for them.There are some weeks off at 0.5 term and yuletide time. in case you omit any each and every person has a e book so it quite is conceivable to capture up! it quite is going to help in case you have already got wisdom approximately Catholicism and you have a sponsor so as that they're going to help fill in what you don't comprehend, as will your priest. once you're won into the Church and have made a dedication then you definitely can initiate receiving Holy Communion, yet no longer in the previous.till then you definitely are welcome to pass up for a blessing from the priest at Communion time. it quite is worth waiting for! God Bless

Answer 5

Quite a question! However, in my opinion, that while God can do anything He wants for sure, the idea of transubstantiation is a very man made explanation with a "religious" overtone.

Christ died ONCE, for all. By believing that it is actually Christ's body and blood that are in or part of the bread (or wafer) and the wine (or juice) makes it seem that the process needs to be done over and over again.

Christians perform this act "in remembrance of Him" they don't have to do it themselves!

Answer 6

There are many good answers here, but I think further comments from Jesus would add weight to the discussion. In John 6:46-65, where he discusses the eating of his flesh and blood. Jesus adds more insight, especially in verse 63 when he says, "It is the spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life." To me, this indicates that he is speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood as being a spiritual act and not a physical act.

Answer 7

It is my understanding that there are some Protestants do believe in Transubstantiation, but most don't. My question to you would be, if you do believe, why would you give up your Catholic Faith, give up receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which is the pinnacle of our Faith? I could understand not believing, then going to a Church where it is not practiced, but, as a believer, I could never give up the Eucharist.

Answer 8

Transubstantiation Protestant

Answer 9

Short answer, it is not Biblical. None of the apostles ever taught this, nor the early Church fathers. By performing this act, they are re-sacrificing Christ all over again. It was never meant to be more than a memorial of what He did for His people. When Christ said, "this is my body", the apostles obviously understood that that piece of passover bread was not His literal body. The doctrine of transubstantiation was started by Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica", written between 1265 -1274.

Answer 10

Because that would be too much like admitting that their roots are in Catholicism, the religion they love to hate.

Although how they reconcil Sola Scriptura with symbolic Communion is something that I've yet to figure out. In the original language, the verb "is" doesn't exist in the sentence, "This (is) My Body. Take, all of ye, and eat."

What Christ is saying is that the Host= My Body and the wine= My Blood. In both cases, the two things are identical with each other, not "sorta kinda like My Body" or "looks a little bit like My Blood."

So right off the bat, you have a conflict between non-transubstantiation and the Protestant insistence on Sola Scriptura. Don't ask me how they do it.