Reformed Protestant apologist, Keith Mathison, in his volume on Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist, wrote the following insightful criticisms of the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Mass, here, focusing on the all-too-literal reading of the phrases “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the Institution narratives of the Lord’s Supper:
[T]he Passover liturgy included the words “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came from the land of Egypt.” In these words, the Jews identified themselves with the historical Exodus. They identified themselves with the people who were actually there and declared their participation in God’s act of redemption. The words of the Passover liturgy were not understood to mean that each generation of Jews somehow ate the very same physical pieces of bread that their forefathers had eaten and digested. At the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus changed the words of the liturgy. Rather than saying “This is the bread,” he said “This is my body.” In neither case are the words meant to be understood in an absolutely literal manner. This is readily granted in the case of the original words of the Passover liturgy, and it should be granted in the case of the new words of the eucharistic liturgy.
Arbitrary Literalism. The Roman Catholic Church also tends to overlook the words that the writers of Scripture use to describe the elements after any consecration would have taken place. When the writers of Scripture mention the elements of the Supper, they refer to them as “bread” and “wine” (or “fruit of the vine”). There is no indication that they believed that any kind of transformation of the substance of the elements has occurred. In Matthew 26:29, for example, Jesus refers to the content of the consecrated cup as “the fruit of the vine.” The words “fruit of the vine” are simply a common Jewish liturgical synonym for “wine.” In other words, the material content of the cup remains the same both before and after the consecration of the elements.
In 1 Corinthians, we observe the same thing. Paul refers to that which is eaten as “bread” in 10:17. He says, “We all partake of that one bread.” In the following chapter, he refers again to that which we eat as “bread” (see 11:26-28). Since the eating of the elements occurs after their consecration. Paul is speaking about the consecrated elements. He refers to the consecrated bread as “bread.” If that which we eat is no longer really and truly bread, then Paul’s language is at best confusing and at worst deceptive.
In our discussion of Matthew’s gospel, we observed that Jesus’ words of institution, if considered apart from any context, could be interpreted either literally or figuratively. The grammar alone is ambiguous and does not demand either interpretation. The verb “to be” can be used either literally, as in Mark 3:11 or Luke 1:18, or figuratively, as in 1 Corinthians 9:2 or 2 Corinthians 6:16. Rome insists that the verb must be interpreted literally in Jesus’ words of institution. Because Rome has insisted on interpreting Jesus’ ambiguous words absolutely literally, she has been forced to interpret Paul’s unambiguous words figuratively. Because there is no logical or grammatical reason for doing this, Rome’s hermeneutical method is revealed to be quite arbitrary, and her demand that biblical words be taken at face value rings hollow. (Keith A. Mathison, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002], 242-43)
Elsewhere, Mathison raises some important theological issues about the dogmatic teachings of Catholicism on the Eucharist, including how it contradicts the Catholic Church’s own teaching on the meaning of “Sacrament”:
The Definition of Sacrament. Part of the definition of a sacrament, according to the Council of Trent, is that it is “a symbol of a second thing” (Thirteenth Session, chap. 3). There is nothing wrong with the definition, as far as it goes. The problem is that Rome’s definition of a sacrament is contradicted by her doctrine of transubstantiation. According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread and wine are not signs or symbols of sacred things; they are the sacred things. The bread and wine are not signs of the body and blood of Christ; they are the body and blood of Christ. In the doctrine of transubstantiation, the distinction between the sign and the thing signified is completely erased. The sign actually becomes the thing signified.
The sign and the reality are identified so absolutely that Roman Catholics are to give the sacramental elements the worship that is due to the only true God (c. Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, chap. 5). If the bread and wine are signs of the reality and not the very reality itself, then such worship is nothing more or less than idolatry. The only possible way that such worship could even conceivably be appropriate is if the consecrated elements actually are the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. But if they actually are the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, then they cannot be signs or symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and if they are not signs or symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and then they are not sacraments according to Rome’s own definition of the body and blood or they are the body and blood. If the consecrated elements are sacraments (signs of the body and blood), then the worship offered to them is idolatrous. If the worship offered to them is not idolatrous, then they are not sacraments. To worship a sacrament is to worship a sign, and to worship a sign is idolatry. (Ibid., 244-45, italics in original)
For more, see my articles on this issue:
