I disagree with that core doctrine of Roman Catholicism, but I also deplore anti catholicism and may likely post on that particular matter later
THE LOGIC OF THE MASS
Stephen Meikle
The first and simplest argument against Transubstantiation is that it violates the
biblical pronouncement on the cross that IT IS FINISHED and that the priesthood
required to handle such a holy thing as the body of Christ has been abolished. The
only sacrifice the Christian can make is praise, for the blood sacrifice is once and for
all, not every Sunday at mass. Moreover the biblical fact of priesthood of all believers,
offering praise because of the placatory blood, and offering not the placatory blood
itself repudiates the separate Catholic priesthood and its sacramental underpinnings.
I regard these arguments as unassailable.
Let us however assume Catholic doctrine is true as regards the Real Presence of Christ
in the communion.
And let us assume that the bread and the wine is the body and blood of Christ.
After all the priest hold up a round moon shaped wafer and says "This is the Lamb of
God which takes away the sins of the world". He is speaking literally otherwise the
doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ is not believed
The mass is not a memorial or a commemoration, it perhaps is not even a
re-enactment. It is the crucifixion of Christ.
This being so every mass is as much the crucifixion of Christ as that on Golgotha.
When was the mass first celebrated? In the Upper Room, the last supper.
Therefore Jesus Christ Lord of the Universe was crucified in an upper room before he
was crucified on a wooden cross.
The question remains, if the mass is the crucifixion then clearly it contains in its own
logical essence every essential element of the crucifixion otherwise it is only
symbolic, something Catholic doctrine itself disallows.
But given this it is entirely logical that Christ could have come to earth, gathered
disciples, instituted Communion and then ascended to heaven, as he had already
suffered.
After all he said at the last supper, “this is my body” - as Catholics aver passionately.
But he also said, “which is broken for you.” Note that he did not say , “which will be
broken for you,” as that turns the mass into a prediction and a symbol. It might be
asserted that the prophetic present , whereby future events are spoken of as having
already occured would rescue the doctrine from absurdity. But in fact it has the
opposite effect, for if the present tense is spoken of a future event then the event at
which this utterance was made, which was the Last Supper, not the Crucifixion turns
the prediction of the crucifixion into something subsidiary to the crucifixion itself,
which the doctrine of the Mass denies the Mass is. Moreover since the time of the
resurrection likewise the priest does not say, “which was broken for you” for that
either turns one crucifixion into many, as if one were not enough, or turns it into a
mere memorial and a symbol, as Protestants have held for centuries. . . .
If the Mass is the crucifixion it logically contains all sufficient elements to render this
so, otherwise it is not the crucifixion, merely a symbolic memorial.
I will return to a second aspect of this later.
If transubstantiation is true therefore the last supper is sufficient for the Redemption of
Man, as the first time the body was broken was in the upper room.
There is no logical need for the nailing on the cross on Golgotha - as this all happened
the night before.
It cannot be argued that the bread and wine becomes the crucified Christ on the basis
of the act on Golgotha’s mount, as this in some way renders the Mass subsidiary to the
historical act on Golgotha’s mount; and besides if the bread and wine is the crucified
Christ the historical act is logically unnecessary.
However it can be argued that it does not follow that the Mass is subsidiary, thus
invalidating my argument here.
To deal with this I will digress.
The Doctrine of the Mass arose not only from the Bible, but from an attempt to fuse
biblical thought with Platonic doctrine. Catholic expression of Trinitarian doctrine
(distinct from the Trinitarian doctrine itself) arises from Platonism. Platonism asserts
that every individual book (for example) is a reflection of some real archetypical thing
which expresses the pure essence of "bookness". This is the platonic meaning of
"essence" - “hypostasis” in Greek, or "substantia" in Latin - hence the English
“substance” . In Platonic doctrine the real archetypal thing which is the pure essence
of the qualities of every object of that kind on earth is called a "form". This Platonic
meaning of "substance" is what is proclaimed in the Credo sung or recited in Masses
every Sunday.
Transubstantiation is built on Platonic doctrine. But so is Arianism, to which I will
return later.
The Greek Platonists who sought to explain the Trinity said words to the effect that
there are three beings but only one essence of godness. Therefore there is still only one
god even though there are three personae, or "masks". For the Latin word "persona"
does not mean "person" as in modern English, it literally means "mask
Likewise, to the Catholic, it can be maintained that the bread and wine in the mass
contain the essence of godness and therefore the Mass is in no way subsidiary.
But though I would not consider denying that Jesus is God, the Father is God and the
Spirit is God; and though I stoutly affirm that the Bible is soundly and solidly
Trinitarian, yet I assert that no one believes Platonic doctrine any more unless held out
of a pre existing Catholic commitment. That God created the universe does not require
that the universe is itself somehow unreal and that it is a reflection of some real and
ultimate "universeness" existing somewhere up in or beyond the ether.
I take Platonic doctrine to be essentially quasi Gnostic in its mode of thought, and to
be rejected. Therefore though I affirm the trinity I reject the “Credo” of the Mass as an
attempt to formulate this divine mystery by trying to fuse the gospel with an ungodly
thought form of the time, one that is in fact no longer believed. Therefore the entire
apparatus of platonic forms is obsolete, and completely unnecessary. The doctrine of
trinity is true but the church’s attempt to formulate and understand it is false.
Therefore the entire nominalist realist debate (were the forms real or merely names),
which debate animated theologians at the time of Thomas Aquinas is moot. And
Aquinas’ formulation of Transubstantian, being essentially platonic, is irrelevant
Appeals to Platonism do not justify transubstantiation any more than they justify or
explain the fact that God created the universe. For Platonism is not a true doctrine,
despite C S Lewis’ fondness for it. No one holds the second of these, that Platonism
accurately describes the created universe therefore no one need hold the first, namely
that Platonism justifies transubstantiation.
Before continuing I must add that there are some things that God cannot do. This is
not because God lacks the power, but that some things, though can be imagined by
man’s mind are in fact logically meaningless. In short, they do not exist as
possibilities such that they can be done. C S Lewis brilliantly dealt with this in his
work.
In claiming that the bread is the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world
Rome asserts that the bread of communion is God. I submit that such a notion is
fraught with logical absurdities.
It can be said that from the rationalist viewpoint of the natural mind the Trinity is also
fraught with absurdities, and indeed it can. But the Scripture clearly and explicitly
expounds the Trinity, whereas the Roman Church only infers transubstantiation from
Scripture . The Trinity is a required mystery, but the meanings of the words in
scripture do not offer sufficient warrant to justify the doctrine of the Mass. An
inference from a statement that can be interpreted ambiguously is totally different
from a bald statement of literal fact. If our reason cannot fathom the Trinity, so be it.
But the insufficient warrant in scripture for transubstantiation makes the issue fair
game as regards intellectual discourse.
First of all I must ask if this is so is not the bread and wine the fourth person of the
trinity? Should we not be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and
Host?
"No", it might be countered, "for the Host is not a fourth person, but it is the Son."
Very well, but this assumes an understanding of the Trinity that I hold suspect , for to
separate the persons of the Trinity too far is tri-theism. Jesus is God, therefore the
Host must be the fourth person of the Trinity, if indeed the Host is God
What is the nature of the divinity of the bread?
How did the bread become the Son?
Is the divinity of the bread contingent or absolute? First let me explain these two
terms. Contingent means resulting from, being derivative, stemming either causally or
logically from some other thing, a result not a first cause. Absolute means that which
is uncaused - the first cause and itself standing alone and independant in every aspect.
In classical Christian thought God alone is abolute and all other things are contingent.
To end my digression: even if Platonism is true how did the "godness" of the platonic
form, the essence, come to inhere the bread?
Surely it, the divinity of the bread, is contingent, being the result of some other factor.
But divinity cannot be contingent, for divinity is increate and absolute. Or, in other
words, divinity is not the result of any thing, rather it is the cause of all things. If the
divinity of the bread is contingent on the priest performing his rite at the altar, or on
God making the bread divine then surely the bread is not divine, for divinity is not
contingent, and not even Platonism can change this.
No created thing can become divine, (that is to say to become God) for divinity in its
truest sense is an attribute of God and God alone. Therefore the divinity of such a
created thing is contingent upon (or dependent on) the operation which made it
divine.
Catholic doctrine asserts that the bread is changed, not that the divinity was always in
the bread but is released by the priestly rite. But only if the bread was increate and
eternal, and eternally divine can the bread be divine.
This means the bread somehow changed from man made bread to the body of Christ
at a certain point in space and time when the priest performed the consecrating rite.
However this implies that the divinity of the bread is contingent on the operation
whereby it was changed.
But contingent divinity is no divinity at all.
Yet as Christ is divine then clearly the bread is not, and cannot be, therefore the bread
is not the body and blood of Christ. For if Christ is not divine he is not God, therefore
the bread, if Christ, must be divine for the idea of Christ as a being not divine is the
Arian heresy.
But the divinity of the bread is contingent on other factors, where the divinity of
Christ is not so contingent, therefore the bread cannot be divine for contingency is not
a feature of divinity, and is indeed proof of creaturely status.
Did God somehow bestow divinity of the bread? I assert that this is meaningless,
something God cannot do. The bread exists as simply bread before it is consecrated.
Before it is consecrated it is no more than a created object. But if God bestowed
divinity on Christ then Christ is not himself God, which is the Arian heresy.
The notion of apotheosis, of the bestowal of divinity, is pagan. God bestows
righteousness and life, not divinity, for divinity as an incommunicable attribute of
God, as is infinity.
We humans have some attributes of God as we are made in his image, but some
attributes of God, like infinity, are his alone by virtue of his being God, and the
bestowal of them is a logical absurdity. God can no more make another God than he
can create an object he cannot move, for the meaningless does not even exist as a
possibility, as C S Lewis, so I said earlier, demonstrated.
A brief word about the Arian heresy. It was first propounded by Arius the presbyter, in
the second or third century.
In its simplest form, as believed by the Germanic tribes beyond the Roman Empire, it
clained that Christ was merely a man, a hero of some sort.
But Arius’ doctrine was far subtler. He insisted that as Platonic or Neo Platonic
doctrine said the godhead was undifferentiated and impassive, incapable of reacting
with or being reacted upon by the creation, and which he took to be true, then Jesus
cannot have been God, but was a lesser created albeit supernatural being.
But any student of scripture knows that God is not impassive, for He passionately
feels and does react with his creation. Indeed that is what love does. And the creation
interacting with God is what worship is. What the Platonists insist God cannot do or
receive from his creation is in fact what He commands of his creation.
Ergo the God of the Platonists is not the God of the Bible. Therefore applying platonic
doctrine to christian truth is risky at best and absolutely anathema at worst.
Platonism could only be true if Deism were true. But it is not.
The fact and nature of creation refutes the Platonic doctrine of forms, and God’s own
revealed character, revealed in Creation, in Scripture and ultimately in Christ refutes
platonic claims about God’s character also.
Platonic doctrine cannot defend transubstantiation without first being defended by the
Bible - something which I believe cannot be done.
Did Christ somehow enter the bread?
Even so this establishes nothing, and is in itself a retreat from the position that the
bread IS Christ.
Christ enters the believer on regeneration, but by no means do I become Christ or even
divine. The most a Christian can ever expect is to become righteous, and fully human,
never divine. Incidentally I regard St Athanasius’ dictum “God became Man that Man
might become God” to be anathema, indeed seeking to be God was Satan’s original
sin. So, if Christ only enters the bread still Christ is not the bread.
Did Christ incarnate the bread?
Now this notion looks promising to believers in transubstantiation but if the notion
that the communion wafer was born of a virgin is not absurd in itself nevertheless I
submit that the notion is logically incoherent. (As incoherent, I might add, as the
notion of some extremist fundamentalists, implied by their bibliolatry, that it was the
book that was crucified for the sins of the world)
Christ as God pre-exists the creation. God can become a man precisely because God
did become a man, namely Jesus Christ.
But a man cannot become a God. I cannot become anyone other than who I am. I can
become manifestly righteous, cleansed of sin, but nothing more is necessary.
The bread existed as bread before it was consecrated. Though Christ became a man
yet if the bread that started its existence as flour and water can become Christ then a
man can become Christ.
Such a notion is of course anathema, as Christ is eternal and pre existent.
God took on human flesh but human flesh did not become God. Catholic doctrine
asserts that the bread becomes Christ when consecrated, but though God can create,
the created cannot become God. For this is, I repeat, a form of the Arian heresy, or
another heresy rightly rejected by the early church, whereby some claim that the man
Jesus became God when the Holy Spirit came on him after his baptism. If bread can
become God then this demonstrates by its logical form that Jesus became God rather
than is pre existently and eternally Ggod
To summarize, Platonism is false and cannot be appealed to the justify
transubstantiation, and without it the Mass is in every way subsidiary to Golgotha,
therefore it not to be identified with it, moreover the trinity certainly does not require
Platonism to be true; the bread cannot become God for firstly such divinity is
contingent which is reductio ad absurdam, as divinity by its own nature is not
contingent; bestowed divinity is unbiblical; God entering a created thing never means
that the created thing becomes God; and the notion that Christ incarnated the bread if
not seen to be prima facie absurd then itself devolves back to either of the two notions
just mentioned.
Could God become bread? Perhaps, but this is not what Catholic doctrine claims.
They claim the bread becomes God. To defend the Real Presence by rewriting the
doctrine to say that God becomes bread rather than the converse is to render
erroneously expressed a doctrine that is the very core of that tradition which catholics
call Sacred. This likewise is something they cannot do.
The Bread and wine are therefore not the body and blood of Christ. "This is my body"
is therefore a metaphor, as is eating his flesh a metaphor for intimate relationship with
the Living God..
None of this does violence to the Biblical text, being as it is an expression of the
Hebraic fondness for colourful metaphor. No data in Scripture is given requiring that
the passages in question here be taken literally, and the logical implications of taking
them literally here set up internal contradictions with the rest of Scripture.
Failing to discern the body, the sin mentioned by St Paul, is not failing to discern that
the bread is Christ, but failing to discern, through flippancy or ignorance, what the
bread symbolizes and commemorates.
What are the essential elements of the Passion?
For clearly if the Mass is the crucifixion then all the aspects of the crucifixion must be
present for this catholic identification of the two to be valid.
What are they?
The bleeding and broken body, they will say, as the body and blood are hidden under
the empirical accidents (that is to say the visible and observable sensory data) of the
sight, weight, texture and taste of the wafer and the wine.
But is this sufficient?
Shed blood alone is insufficient, as has been mordantly pointed out by atheist skeptics,
for given this a mere paper cut on his hand would have sufficed.
I suggest that shed blood leading even to death is insufficient, as an accident, a fall or
a grievous wound from a tool would have been sufficient.
Further required is the element of suffering, the sense of despair, and the whole sense
of punishment contained in the crucifixion not only the physical pain but the
emotional pain, for the instrument of the purchasing of our redemption was not a
painless bleeding of an unconscious man or even the rejoicing, though in physical
pain, as typified the deaths of many martyrs.
The cry "My God My God why have you forsaken me" is a crucial aspect of the
passion, indeed I submit that without it his death was a mere martyrdom, the death of
a good man, and not a redemption. For without the despair which revealed christ’s
separation from God there may be no separation from God, but the punishment for sin
is separation from God.
Therefore, if Catholic doctrine is here true, not only is the body and blood contained
in the bread and the wine, but the mind which cried out in despair before yielding up
his spirit likewise must be contained in the bread and wine if the bread and wine
contain sufficient elements of the passion to be identical to it.
And as the crucifixion was the dying of a broken and bleeding body, not merely the
broken and bleeding of a body already dead, if the Mass *IS* the crucifixion of Christ
then the bread is a suffering living person who cried out in agony, "My God why have
you forsaken me?" even if the cry is masked by the accidents of the bread and wine.
And the priest’s breaking of the wafer is a punitive act. For Golgotha was not only
death and suffering, but punishment.
Therefore the bread and wine is a sentient being with a mind who despairs at
approximately 11:30 every Sunday morning in thousands of Catholic churches all over
the world, being punished by the priest who broke his body.
This being the case the crucifixion was not merely the mechanical breaking of a body
and the shedding of blood. It was not only the suffering of a person, it was the death of
a person. Jesus cried out (which cry of anguish is necessary if the crucifixion contains
all the essential elements of the passion, which it must if it is more than a mere
memorial). And he died.
The living body became a dead one, otherwise there was no redemption. Therefore if
the bread is the sacrifice of Christ the living bread became dead bread which yielded
up a spirit which necessarily was also hidden under the accidents of the bread and
wine, but, having now gone, being yielded to the Father, is no longer present in the
bread.
The communicants eat not living bread but dead bread, for if Christ did not die He
redeemed no one, and if the Mass is the sacrifice then the bread is dead, having
suffered and despaired as well as bleeding and being torn.
.
I submit this is reductio ad absurdam, which means a disproof of an idea by showing
the logical contradictions contained within it. The lord’s supper is not the crucifixion
of Christ, logic will not allow it to contain sufficient elements for this to be so.
Therefore it is a memorial, to the fact that he died once and for all and
IT IS FINISHED
