Why is Trans-substantiation a False Doctrine?

Definition: The belief that the Bread and the Wine at Mass literally become Christs body and blood when entering the mouth.Why is Trans-substantiation a False Doctrine?
Read this:





http://whateverycatholicshouldknow.com/w鈥?/a>Why is Trans-substantiation a False Doctrine?
Because Jesus said communion is symbolic -- not the literal !





The Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ';This is my body, which is for you; do this in rememberance of me.'; In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying ';This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remeberance of me.'; I Corinthians, 11:23-25
Actually I believe you will find that the teaching is that it turns into His body and blood when it is blessed by the priest. Basically the Bible does not support this doctrine. It is symbolic of His body and blood nowhere in Bible or early church history documents is Trans-substantiation supported. The mass is another situation for it is totally against the teachings of the Bible. Jesus does not have to die over and over again. He died once for all sins.
It isn't taught in the Bible.





In 1 Corinthians 11, it is still referred to as bread, four times.





The Mass started in the 9th century:





Catechism teaches:


鈥?Originated in 9th century by Radbertus


鈥?Declared mandatory in the 11th century, under the penalty of mortal sin (2192)


鈥?Mass is identical to sacrifice of the cross (1367)


鈥?Mass is a bloodless sacrifice for sins (1382)


鈥?The altar is where Jesus is sacrificed (1383)


鈥?Redemption is carried out by the mass (1364)


鈥?Sacrifice is offered for souls in purgatory (1371)





In contrast the Bible teaches:





鈥?The sacrifice of Jesus made purification for all sins for all time (Heb. 1:3, 7:27)


鈥?Jesus obtained eternal redemption through His blood for all time (Heb. 9:12)


鈥?Jesus put away sin with His one time sacrifice (Heb. 9:25-28)


鈥?Jesus died once for all time (Heb. 10:10-12)


鈥?Christians are to offer sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15)


鈥?Jesus instructed to make disciples but did not mention sacrifice or mass (Matt. 28:19)


鈥?The sacrifice of Jesus perfected Christians for all time (Heb. 10:14)


鈥?Sacrifices are no longer necessary when sins are paid for by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10:18)





Comment: The idea of a mass is contradictory to the doctrine that Christ鈥檚 sacrifice was sufficient for all time. Once again we see the doctrine stating that what Jesus has done wasn鈥檛 good enough. Masses (whether votive for souls in purgatory, requiem for funeral, nuptial for marriage) are a great source of income for the church.
Because just like the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, the selling of indulgences, the infallibility of the Pope, the confession booth, and purgatory it is a man made doctrine. No scriptural support of it or any of these RCC doctrines whatsoever.
No.. Jesus never said this means my body as jehovah witnesses and all protestants say it's something symbolic.. he said this is my body and this is my blood.. Jesus said who doesn't eat the body of the son of man.. it doesn't eternal life.. the Holy Sacrament is a mystery.. many people try to explain his words.. but Jesus has real presence in the Holy Communion... if you don't believe in that..then you don't accept the real presence of Christ.
jesus told them 3 times that he is the body and blood , when they understood what he was saying a lot of them got up and walked out, now if it was symbolic he would have called them back.'; hey fellas you misunderstood.' no he let them go , the others remained. read john ch 6
It isn't.





Why did St. Paul so vehemently defend the Real Presence in his first letter to the Corinthians?





He wasn't even at the Last Supper, and in 1 Corinthians 11 he shows us that not only had he received and been handed on the living tradition of the Eucharistic sacrifice through the apostolic tradition, but that he felt SO strongly about the fact that the bread and wine are TRULY flesh and blood, that he strictly warns followers who are in a state of serious (mortal) sin, ';not to partake, lest they eat and drink judgment unto themselves.'; There is NO way that St. Paul believed the Eucharist to be merely symbolic. Nowhere else in any of Paul's writings does he take a mere ';allegory'; and defend it or explain it as doctrinal. And if you ';throw out'; St. Paul, you have just (in effect) ';thrown out'; half of the New Testament.





Why did Jesus not correct His statement in John 6 when followers began to leave because the teaching was ';too hard';?





When they murmured amongst themselves and began to leave (John 6:41, 43, 66), Jesus didn't relent, and didn't claim that they ';misunderstood what He meant';, and ask them to come back He spoke even more truthfully and passionately, repeating that His flesh and blood were true food and drink, not one time, not two times, not three times, but FOUR times.





If the Eucharist is not truly Christ's body and blood, than...





Nature creation, disobeyed its creator. Everywhere else that the Lord commands something inanimate like the sea and wind, those creations obey God. When Jesus said, ';This is My body';, it's not like the bread replied, ';No, I'm not, I'm Wonder Bread.'; Humans are the only creatures with the free will and ability to disobey God. Creation is not.





If the Eucharist is not truly Christ's body and blood, than...





Why would so many people over the first three centuries have died for that meal? If it is ';just bread'; why would they sneak out to meet in the catacombs and risk their lives, for a simple piece of bread they could get at home, or fellowship they could get in their own ';neighborhoods';?


Why would so many saints and martyrs, many far more intelligent and holier than you or I, have gone to their deaths living and defending the true presence?


Why would the command have been so diligently followed over the centuries, if it wasn't really from God and only from man?


Why would Christ have proclaimed it to be?





The Real Presence is the truth. People can try to argue and say that He didn't do it, but no one who believes in Christ could argue that He couldn't do it. And the minute you proclaim that He could do it, you need only look to His WORD, where He gives us ';His Word';, and we realize not only that He can, but He did.
Doesn't taste like blood and flesh. Maybe it transforms when 2/3 of the way down the esophogus. That whole thing is invented by the Catholic Church. Did jesus say to light candles and burn incense? All those rituals are made up.
Because it's physically impossible?
No idea, take it up with Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli.
because they don't like thinking about the crucifixion
Because it doesn't happen.
because it is just wordplay with no real relevance or purpose