Reformed Apologetics Ministries
Monday, March 17, 2014
Historical Examination of Roman Catholic Eucharist Theology

Rome claims her view is historical. We will now examine if the early church writers taught transubstantiation of the bread and wine as well as the Mass being seen as an expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice. Rome has erroneously claimed her modern view has always been held by the historic church. At the Council of Trent Rome taught her belief was affirmed by “all our forefathers” (Thirteenth Session, Chapter 1, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. H. J. Schroeder, [TAN Books and Publishers, 1978], p. 73), that is, church fathers. Trent also claimed, “because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God” (Thirteen Session, Chapter 4, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. H. J. Schroeder, [TAN Books and Publishers, 1978], p. 75). We will therefore test Rome’s claims historically.

Rome’s idea ahistorical & based on Aristotelian concepts adopted late by the church. Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation is dependent on the pagan Aristotle’s philosophical idea of accidents and substance. Modern Rome’s specific view as espoused by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent, as well as other papal documents, that the substance of the elements change into the body and blood of Christ, while the appearance, taste and smell remain bread and wine is dependent on the Aristotelian categories of accidents of substance. Aristotle theorized that substance makes something what it is, and that the accidents give to it its external appearance etc. So Rome followed in this thinking in defining her teaching. What must be understood then is that since medieval Rome’s late specific teaching is