The false Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is best defined in their own publications. On page 273 of the Baltimore Catechism, we read the following:

Recently, there was a discussion with an erring brother who now believes, supports, and defends this false doctrine. He wrote, in part:

It is interesting to note that Bible scholars, such as Albert E. Barnes, William Hendrickson, Matthew Henry, J.W. McGarvey, and Phillip Y. Pendleton, deny what this erring brother's unidentified "scholar" claims. On page 658 of the Fourfold Gospel, by J.W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendelton, we read:

On pages 738-741 of Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, by E. W. Bullinger, in commenting on Matthew 26:26, he writes:

Let us now examine the Roman Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation in light of the scriptures. In so doing, we will see that this doctrine is utterly false for the following reasons:

1. This doctrine destroys the nature of the institution as set forth by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. The Lord's Supper is a memorial, a "sign" of something signified. The false doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the memorial and the "sign." Jesus had not yet been crucified when He instituted the Lord's Supper. Claiming that the bread becomes the literal body of the Lord, and the fruit of the vine becomes His literal blood, "takes away the memorial and the sign and puts the object commemorated, or the thing signified, in its place." (Bulwarks of the Faith, by Foy E. Wallace, p-186)
   
   Did Jesus take His own flesh and blood and give it to the apostles? Since He was present with them, such a thing is not plausible. His very presence makes it both improbable and impossible. So, the elements (the bread and fruit of the vine) of the memorial supper are the same now as they were then.
   
   
2. The false doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to Bible language. Remember, the supporters of this doctrine often argue: "He [Christ] didn't say it's a representation of his body and blood." So, we will now apply this faulty "reasoning" to other of Christ's statements found in the Scriptures and see how they weigh:
   
   
   • When Jesus said, "I am the bread," (John 6:41) did He mean literal bread? Remember, as argued by supporters of this doctrine, He didn't say, "I am a representation of bread."
     
     
   • When Jesus said, "I am the vine," (John 15:5) was He a literal vine? He didn't say, "I am a representation of a vine." Therefore, if Christ was a literal vine, then His disciples had to be literal branches, because He said, "I am the vine, ye are the branches."
     
     
   • When Jesus said, "I am the door," (John 10:7,9) was He a literal door? He didn't say, "I am a representation of a door."
     
     
   • When Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12) was He a literal shepherd? He didn't say, "I am a representation of a shepherd." We might also ask, were the "sheep," the "shepherd," and the "wolf" mentioned in these verses literal or figurative?
     
     
   • When Jesus taught, in Matthew 5:13-14, "Ye are the light of the world," did He mean the disciples were literal lights? If so, I wonder what kind--candles, lamps, torches, etc. Remember, He didn't say, "Ye are a representation of light."
     
     
   • When Jesus said, "Ye are the salt of the earth," did He mean they were table salt, rock salt, kosher salt, or block salt? Which? Let them tell us. Remember, He didn't say, "Ye are a representation of salt."
     
     
   By using Catholicism's own faulty "reasoning," it is easy to show the foolishness and fallacy of such quibbles. In the passages cited above, Jesus used figures of speech (metaphors) in His teachings, just as He did when He instituted the memorial supper.
   
   
3. The false doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to science. If, after a Catholic priest blessed the bread and the fruit of the vine, a qualified scientist analyzed them, what would be the outcome? Would the scientist agree that the bread and fruit of the vine are the literal human flesh and blood of Jesus? Or, would the test show it to be bread and the fruit of the vine? Catholic theologians speak of the "Real Presence," but the Lord Himself, and the apostle Paul, commanded Christians to partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine "in remembrance of me." (Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11:24)
   
   When Jesus took the cup and said to His disciples, "drink ye all of it," was He referring to the literal cup or the contents of the cup (the fruit of the vine)? Remember, He didn't say "this cup is a representation of the fruit of the vine." So, according to Catholic reasoning, Jesus meant for them to drink the literal cup! Now wouldn't that be hard to swallow, literally?
   
   In order to prove this doctrine false, it is not necessary to cite scholars, although I did. But I did so to show that bringing up what some unidentified "scholar" says, carries no weight. All we have to do is go to the scriptures to see the true meaning.
   
   
   • In Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25, and Luke 22:18, Jesus spoke of the "cup" as being the "fruit of the vine," or the cup's contents.
   • In Matthew 26:29, Jesus said, "ButI say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
     
     
   These verses show that He commanded His disciples to drink, not His literal blood, but the "fruit of the vine." When Paul wrote the Corinthians concerning their abuse of the Lord's Supper, he said they were to "eat this bread, and drink this cup." (1 Corinthians 11:26, cf. vs. 27,28). According to Catholic doctrine, Paul should have commanded them to "eat of His flesh and drink of His blood."
   
   
4. The false Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation violates the Scriptures by withholding the cup. In 1415, the Council of Constance decreed that only the bread should be administered to the people, and that the priest should drink the wine for the people. This practice is contrary to divine scripture. Reread 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 and the gospel accounts. Paul commanded, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." Nowhere does it imply that anyone was to feed them the bread or drink the fruit of the vine for them! When Jesus instituted this supper, in His own memory, He commanded them ALL to partake of it, saying, "drink ye all of it." (Matthew 26:26) Mark says that Jesus "gave it to them: and they all drank of it." (Mark 14:22-23)
   
   Compare the order in which they partook of the Lord's Supper, as revealed in the scriptures, with the Catholic tradition--a priest takes a small cracker or wafer and puts it on the recipient's tongue (an unsanitary practice); then, the priest drinks the fruit of the vine for those who are present. Is this partaking of the memorial supper or being fed only the bread portion of the "supper?" The Bible teaches that the first-century disciples met on the "first day of the week" to "break bread," implying that all partook of both elements of the memorial supper (Acts 20:7; Acts 2:42; Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 10:16). This unscriptural Catholic tradition disgraces the Divine memorial that Christ instituted!
   
   
5. The false Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation was not declared a Roman Catholic Article of Faith until 1215 A.D., by the Fourth Lateran Council! This is almost 1200 years AFTER the Lord's church was established. I wonder why, if they believed and practiced this doctrine, all of the "infallible" popes (who claim to speak ex cathedra) during the time period before 1200 A.D. didn't declare Transubstantiation an Article of Faith?
   
   
6. The Catholic false doctrine of Transubstantiation violates the commands of divine Scripture found in Acts 15:6-30. The Gentile disciples were commanded to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20,29) So, according to this false doctrine, Jesus commanded what His inspired apostles forbade, thus pitting scripture against scripture.

Finally, this false doctrine is in the "another gospel" category. Of the Galatians, the apostle Paul wrote, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:6-9) Nowhere in Scripture do we find the words/phrases, "Transubstantiation," "Holy Eucharist," or "Real Presence." Therefore, this false doctrine is not from Heaven, but of men (Matthew 21:23-27)! When this doctrine is tried and tested against scripture, it fails the test. He who teaches this false doctrine, "hath not God" and is "accursed" (2 John 9; Galatians 6:9)! And, "he that biddeth him [them] God speed is partaker of his [their] evil deeds." (2 John 10,11)

[Note:] In recent years, the Roman Catholic church has changed their practice and they now provide the wine to all participants. This does not in any way diminish brother McClure's argument. [MEH]