Logical Problems with Transubstantiation

[johnladder]

Here are four major logical problems with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Any solutions?

1. Complex double/triple metaphor in the Institution statement: Luke 22:20 records Jesus’ Institution of The Lord’s Supper as:

“This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

This is a complex figure of speech having five elements:

This cup – a cup, containing wine which is to be representative
which is poured out for you – he does not literally pour it out, but indicates that His life will be spent in saving those who come to believe in him
is the new covenant – neither the cup, nor the wine it contains, is literally the new covenant
in – the covenant does not consist of the material in His blood, nor of the cup, nor of the wine.
my blood. – neither the cup, nor the wine, is actually His blood—which at that moment had been flowing in His veins.

The Twelve did not literally drink the cup itself, nor did they literally drink the new covenant.

A literal interpreation of this statement makes it absurd. Each of the components is figurative. And, if each one of the components is figurative, then the entire statement must be so. The cup actually refers actually to the wine it contains, which symbolizes the new covenant—which is to be enacted in the shedding of His blood. All the early Christians (prior to 100 A.D) knew what Jesus means here.

2. Wine was wine beforehand, and after: In Luke 22:17-18, just prior to the Institution, Jesus addresses the Twelve:

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said ‘Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.’

Looking carefully, we can make the following deductions:

a. The wine in the cup was “fruit of the vine” before the Institution of the Lord’s Supper. “Take this,” he said. “This” refers to the contents of the cup, which is the “fruit of the vine.”
b. The wine in the cup was “fruit of the vine” after the Institution. Jesus says he won’t drink it until “after” the kingdom of God comes. It will still be “the fruit of the vine’ at that time.

Fruit of the vine before, and after. The straightforward conclusion is that it remains fruit of the vine (wine) throughout. Therefore, it is always wine, which Jesus employs as a symbol of the New Covenant in verse 22.

**3. Simultaneously bloody and unbloody: ** In 1563, the Council of Trent declared that “this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner”

But Pope Pius IV pontificated in 1564:

“I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

How can it be both blood and unbloody? On the one hand, we are to understand that there is some sort of transformation into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. But at the same time, we are to see it as unbloody. This is simply nonsense.

4. Limited physical content available for distribution: Following the Resurrection, Jesus presented himself in his familiar, though-glorified human body—all in one piece—to his closest disciples. So, the shape and mass of his body was similar to the crucified body. Now that the Roman Church has grown so large and conducts thousands of Masses throughout the world each week, a question arises: How is his flesh and blood—from one finite body—to be so finely distributed to suit this purpose? Or does each parish only receive a portion of Jesus flesh and blood? Which portions?

 

[juliamajor]

Here are four major logical problems with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Any solutions?

1. Complex double/triple metaphor in the Institution statement: Luke 22:20 records Jesus’ Institution of The Lord’s Supper as:

“This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

This is a complex figure of speech having five elements:

This cup – a cup, containing wine which is to be representative
which is poured out for you – he does not literally pour it out, but indicates that His life will be spent in saving those who come to believe in him
is the new covenant – neither the cup, nor the wine it contains, is literally the new covenant
in – the covenant does not consist of the material in His blood, nor of the cup, nor of the wine.
my blood. – neither the cup, nor the wine, is actually His blood—which at that moment had been flowing in His veins.

The Twelve did not literally drink the cup itself, nor did they literally drink the new covenant.

A literal interpreation of this statement makes it absurd. Each of the components is figurative. And, if each one of the components is figurative, then the entire statement must be so. The cup actually refers actually to the wine it contains, which symbolizes the new covenant—which is to be enacted in the shedding of His blood. All the early Christians (prior to 100 A.D) knew what Jesus means here.

2. Wine was wine beforehand, and after: In Luke 22:17-18, just prior to the Institution, Jesus addresses the Twelve:

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said ‘Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.’

Looking carefully, we can make the following deductions:

a. The wine in the cup was “fruit of the vine” before the Institution of the Lord’s Supper. “Take this,” he said. “This” refers to the contents of the cup, which is the “fruit of the vine.”
b. The wine in the cup was “fruit of the vine” after the Institution. Jesus says he won’t drink it until “after” the kingdom of God comes. It will still be “the fruit of the vine’ at that time.

Fruit of the vine before, and after. The straightforward conclusion is that it remains fruit of the vine (wine) throughout. Therefore, it is always wine, which Jesus employs as a symbol of the New Covenant in verse 22.

**3. Simultaneously bloody and unbloody: ** In 1563, the Council of Trent declared that “this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner”

But Pope Pius IV pontificated in 1564:

“I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

How can it be both blood and unbloody? On the one hand, we are to understand that there is some sort of transformation into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. But at the same time, we are to see it as unbloody. This is simply nonsense.

4. Limited physical content available for distribution: Following the Resurrection, Jesus presented himself in his familiar, though-glorified human body—all in one piece—to his closest disciples. So, the shape and mass of his body was similar to the crucified body. Now that the Roman Church has grown so large and conducts thousands of Masses throughout the world each week, a question arises: How is his flesh and blood—from one finite body—to be so finely distributed to suit this purpose? Or does each parish only receive a portion of Jesus flesh and blood? Which portions?

Do you really want to know and learn? or is this just a wind up for a simplistic one dimensional attack on the Eucharist?I won’t waste my time on someone who has no respect for a catholic(East and West) position and wishes to denigrate or make farcical all that we hold sacred.Forgive me If I am wrong but I smell troll.

 

[JimG]

Those disciples who deserted Jesus immediately following the bread of life discourse also had a logical problem with it. (“This sort of talk is hard to endure! Who can take it seriously?” --John 6:60)

But even though, “from this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer,” he did not call them back.

 

[juliamajor]

I studied other posts by and your non denominational (an illogical, unsound title that is in reality meaningless) stance is anti-Eucharistic to the point of obsession. Tell me- what is the real deal with you? why are you so obsessed with the Eucharist that you have a need to defame it and us? You don’t believe in the Eucharist-okay-get over it Catholics and other like minded folk do.Does this teaching offend you? Relax. Your in the company of many who deserted Jesus in John 6.

 

[wolfgang]

 

[Poco]

The Twelve did not literally drink the cup itself, nor did they literally drink the new covenant.

Where, exactly, did you come up with this?

 

[johnladder]

I studied other posts by and your non denominational (an illogical, unsound title that is in reality meaningless) stance is anti-Eucharistic to the point of obsession. Tell me- what is the real deal with you? why are you so obsessed with the Eucharist that you have a need to defame it and us? You don’t believe in the Eucharist-okay-get over it Catholics and other like minded folk do.Does this teaching offend you? Relax. Your in the company of many who deserted Jesus in John 6.

This is an apologetics forum. That means that I should find plenty of people here who can readily defend Catholicism.

How nice of you to pronounce judgment upon me! This is typical of yet another unbiblical stance often taken up by Catholics: “you are not of the true Church, so you’re going to hell.”

Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 15:9 – IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS (a)DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’"

 

[Portrait]

This is an apologetics forum. That means that I should find plenty of people here who can readily defend Catholicism.

How nice of you to pronounce judgment upon me! This is typical of yet another unbiblical stance often taken up by Catholics: “you are not of the true Church, so you’re going to hell.”

Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 15:9 – IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS (a)DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’"

Dear johnladder,

Greetings to you and thankyou for submiting your questions on these Forums.

God willing I will endeavour to respond to the questions you raise over the next few days (probably Monday). If its any consolation I think that some attempt should be made to address your concerns about the Holy Eucharist, I cannot do so at the present time but I will try to do so shortly.

Once again thankyou for your questions.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Mark77]

**You are like every other human being who does not accept God without doubt, trying to squeeze an Infinite God into your infinitesimally tiny “logical” understanding!
**

**The only logical problem with Transubstantiation is our arrogance & ignorance!
**
Pope Benedict XVI taught us;

"We are dealing here with the vast question as to how we can and cannot know God, how we are related to God and how we can lose him.** The arrogance that would make God an object and impose our laboratory conditions upon him is incapable of finding him. For it already implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him, by discarding the whole dimension of love, of interior listening; by no longer acknowledging as real anything but what we can experimentally test and grasp**.** To think like that is to make oneself God. And to do that is to abase not only God, but the world and oneself, too."

“Jesus of Nazareth” Papa Benedictus XVI, (p. 37) **

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[IHeartBenedict]

I just love the title of this thread: “Logical Problems with Transubstantiation”.

And I suppose you can find no logical problems with a man rising from the dead, or the Red Sea parting in half? Can you explain those using mere logic?

Faith is the key to ALL we believe. If the Almighty God of the Universe can create the heavens, the earth, create man and woman, then surely he can transform a piece of bread.

Logic. LOL.

 

[juliamajor]

This is an apologetics forum. That means that I should find plenty of people here who can readily defend Catholicism.

How nice of you to pronounce judgment upon me! This is typical of yet another unbiblical stance often taken up by Catholics: “you are not of the true Church, so you’re going to hell.”

Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 15:9 – IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS (a)DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’"

Who the heck as condemned you to hell! You are really hilarious. You take a molehill and make a mountain out of it.
Have you ever heard of being a good guest. And you are a guest.Try a few manners they will go very far.
As far as my judgment goes- it was dead on.No one is saying your going to hell and you completely misunderstand catholic Doctrine- no surprise there. Is saying your not born again so you’re going to hell any better!? Or do assume to know who is born again and who is not?Or is just saying you’re born again good enough?
Newsflash - any institution church or gathering of people has precepts of men.Tradition is just part and parcel of humanity. How your pastor preaches- tradition. How you celebrate births , death , wedding milestones in your church is tradition. What scripture is used to back up your viewpoints- tradition.you might think you are not but heck that’s just denial. Bye!

 

[IHeartBenedict]

This is an apologetics forum. That means that I should find plenty of people here who can readily defend Catholicism.

How nice of you to pronounce judgment upon me! This is typical of yet another unbiblical stance often taken up by Catholics: “you are not of the true Church, so you’re going to hell.”

Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 15:9 – IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS (a)DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’"

Sir, what you have said is wrong, not to mention overly dramatic.

1. No one here “pronounced judgement” on you that I can see.
2. Official Church teaching is that non-Catholics also can acheive salvation, so your statement that we say, “you are not of the true Church, so you’re going to hell”, is un-called for.
3. Your misuse of Matt 15:9 is offensive. Scriptures are to be used to lift up: They are not to be slung as insults.

If you come into a Catholic forum and immediately challenge the very core of our worship - the Eucharist - you are going to get passionate replies.

If you go into a lions den and try to take out the head lion, you can’t get upset if you get clawed and bitten a few times.

Now, perhaps you can reply to my post:

I just love the title of this thread: “Logical Problems with Transubstantiation”.

And I suppose you can find no logical problems with a man rising from the dead, or the Red Sea parting in half? Can you explain those using mere logic?

Faith is the key to ALL we believe. If the Almighty God of the Universe can create the heavens, the earth, create man and woman, then surely he can transform a piece of bread.

 

[Philthy]

Here are four major logical problems with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Any solutions?

The question is not whether there are any solutions, but if there is anyone truly interested in hearing them. Unfortunately your participation in previous threads where you admit no room for the logical conclusions of others precedes this thread.

1. Complex double/triple metaphor in the Institution statement: This is a complex figure of speech having five elements:
This cup – a cup, containing wine which is to be representative
which is poured out for you – he does not literally pour it out, but indicates that His life will be spent in saving those who come to believe in him
is the new covenant – neither the cup, nor the wine it contains, is literally the new covenant
in – the covenant does not consist of the material in His blood, nor of the cup, nor of the wine.
my blood. – neither the cup, nor the wine, is actually His blood—which at that moment had been flowing in His veins.

This in my opinion, is so foolish as to not warrant a response.

A literal interpreation of this statement makes it absurd. Each of the components is figurative. And, if each one of the components is figurative, then the entire statement must be so.

False conclusion. The statements, and their combined meaning, can have more than one level of understanding. You have apparently predicated your thought that if Christ speaks figuratively he cannot mean anything literally, and you are mistaken.

The cup actually refers actually to the wine it contains, which symbolizes the new covenant—which is to be enacted in the shedding of His blood.

I see no relationship between a cup of wine and the shedding of blood on a crucifix. Perhaps you could justify this claim as well before you assume that it makes any sense whatsoever.

All the early Christians (prior to 100 A.D) knew what Jesus means here.

Of course they did - and history records that they believed that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Lord just as St Paul said and just as Catholics believe.

2. Wine was wine beforehand, and after:

Fruit of the vine before, and after. The straightforward conclusion is that it remains fruit of the vine (wine) throughout. Therefore, it is always wine, which Jesus employs as a symbol of the New Covenant in verse 22.

Again, how does a cup of wine become a symbol of the New Covenant??? I say it doesnt symbolize it at all.

**3. Simultaneously bloody and unbloody: **How can it be both blood and unbloody? On the one hand, we are to understand that there is some sort of transformation into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. But at the same time, we are to see it as unbloody. This is simply nonsense.

My first comment is that nowhere in any of the material you provided did the Church use the term “bloody”. It is blood in it’s essential nature (what it is irrespective of how it is perceived), but not in it’s accidental nature (what we experience through the senses). Please read some Catholic sources on this if you are truly interested - this has been explained thoroughly and is available through even a simple search on google. The fact that you ask this question leads me to believe that you havent even attempted to investigate it honestly.

4. Limited physical content available for distribution: Following the Resurrection, Jesus presented himself in his familiar, though-glorified human body—all in one piece—to his closest disciples. So, the shape and mass of his body was similar to the crucified body.

Sorry, but you have made a universal conclusion(Christ glorified body always appears similar to his preglorified body) out of a singular or collection of singular events. Christs glorified appearance was not always similar to his pre-glorified appearance. Scripture explicitly tells us that he was unrecognized by disciples on three different occasions. Do you need me to list them for you? This undeniable fact invalidates your “simple” logic.

Now that the Roman Church has grown so large and conducts thousands of Masses throughout the world each week, a question arises: How is his flesh and blood—from one finite body—to be so finely distributed to suit this purpose? Or does each parish only receive a portion of Jesus flesh and blood? Which portions?

I honestly hope that someday you will come to understand how foolish and worldly this question is. God controls all of creation - including time and space - effortlessly through his Word. Perhaps you need to reread the miracle of the fish and loaves? That should suffice to have you rescind these comments. If not, I dont think anything I will say will change your simple logic to conform with the truth. God’s truth is not limited by the tidy little box known as “simple logic” - he’s bigger than that John, much bigger!

Blessings!

 

[johnladder]

I just love the title of this thread: “Logical Problems with Transubstantiation”.

And I suppose you can find no logical problems with a man rising from the dead, or the Red Sea parting in half? Can you explain those using mere logic?

Faith is the key to ALL we believe. If the Almighty God of the Universe can create the heavens, the earth, create man and woman, then surely he can transform a piece of bread.

Logic. LOL.

Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. – Matthew 22:37/ Deuteronomy 6:5

The Lord gave us a brain to use it, and coming to faith in Jesus doesn’t mean we have to take leave of reason. Certainly your Jesuit friends will agree with this!

I am not referring to a contrast between logic/reason/empiricism and the miraculous. My point is that the notion of transubstantiation has inherent logical flaws. Moreover, it is not biblical, which further exacerbates the problem for the mind of a Christian.

 

[guanophore]

This is an apologetics forum. That means that I should find plenty of people here who can readily defend Catholicism.

Yes, but the purpose of CAF is to give “Catholic Answers”. If you are not willing to listen to them, why ask? Perhaps you are only here to attack, and not to learn? You really come across as someone who already has their mind made up, and is quite closed to any defense we could make.

How nice of you to pronounce judgment upon me!

No one pronounced judgement upon you John. The observation was made that you seem to be intent upon attacking our faith. The eternal consequences for such behavior is between you and God. The temporal ones may include that you will no longer be able to post here.

Members are required to respect our faith, which it is clear you do not.

This is typical of yet another unbiblical stance often taken up by Catholics: “you are not of the true Church, so you’re going to hell.”

I am looking forward to seeing where you found this in a Catholic document.

Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 15:9 – IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS (a)DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’"

Clearly you seem to believe that Catholic doctrines are the “precepts of men”.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. – Matthew 22:37/ Deuteronomy 6:5

The Lord gave us a brain to use it, and coming to faith in Jesus doesn’t mean we have to take leave of reason. Certainly your Jesuit friends will agree with this!

I am not referring to a contrast between logic/reason/empiricism and the miraculous. My point is that the notion of transubstantiation has inherent logical flaws. Moreover, it is not biblical, which further exacerbates the problem for the mind of a Christian.

You say it is not Biblical. But the great fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church, along with almost 70% of Christians today, say it IS Biblical. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not speak in absolutes. It is not Biblical in your opinion, but your opinion is not Holy Writ.

As for the Jesuits, they believe in it too, so you might not want to go down that road.

 

[johnladder]

Dear johnladder,

… If its any consolation I think that some attempt should be made to address your concerns about the Holy Eucharist, I cannot do so at the present time but I will try to do so shortly.

Please read the thread The Sacrifice of the Mass before addressing any questions on the Eucharist.

Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.  -- Matthew 22:37/ Deuteronomy 6:5

The Lord gave us a brain to use it, and coming to faith in Jesus doesn’t mean we have to take leave of reason. Certainly your Jesuit friends will agree with this!

Indeed yes. True learning, though if faith, seeking understanding. There comes a point at which our human logic fails us,a nd when we stand face to face with the divine mystery such as the Eucharist, logic is insufficient.

The biggest problem with the notion of Transubstantiation is that logic is trying to explain a divine mystery and therefore, will always fall short.

I am not referring to a contrast between logic/reason/empiricism and the miraculous.  My point is that the notion of transubstantiation has inherent logical flaws.  Moreover, it is not biblical, which further exacerbates the problem for the mind of a Christian.

Why is this a problem for YOU , though, John? Since you seem to have no use for the Catholic Church, I don’t understand why it would bother you so much what Catholics believe?

 

[johnladder]

You say it is not Biblical. But the great fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church, along with almost 70% of Christians today, say it IS Biblical. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not speak in absolutes. It is not Biblical in your opinion, but your opinion is not Holy Writ.

You should know better: there are many early theologians who disagree. I don’t think you can count 70% of Christians, and most Catholics that do believe in doctrines such as transubstantiation do so because of the “authority” of the Church. Anyway…

So go for it. Instead of dismissing my view as mere opinion, go ahead and refute my points. Show us that transubstantiation is indeed logically consistent and coherent.

Incidentally, are your opinions concerning the doctrines of the Roman Church more valuable because they derive from an “authoritative” source?

 

[guanophore]

Please read the thread The Sacrifice of the Mass before addressing any questions on the Eucharist.

Thanks!

Hello.  I'm new to this forum-

Perhaps, since you are new, you did not take the opportunity to read the forum rules, which state that you are not to create duplicate threads in many sections at the same time.

Our recent discussion pertains to the Mass as a sacrificial ritual,…I’d like to get some help in understanding how ritual sacrifice is appropriate now that Jesus has made final atonement for sin.

This requires a thorough understanding of Passover. Jesus is our Passover Lamb. Do you understand what that means?

CA boldly declares that “The Eucharist is a true sacrifice”, and is not to be seen as merely a remembrance. This is taken directly from the 22nd session of the Council of Trent.

The Passover Lamb was sacrificed. The Lord’s supper is our memorial meal. If you look at the language, Jesus’ says “do this”, using the same word that is used in the OT for a priest conducting a ritual sacrifice. the rememberance" is an anamesis - a ritual recreation.

There we find that the justification for the Rome's insistence upon viewing the Mass as a sacrificial ritual is:

The ritual sacrifice is not “Roman”. Using this language is considered insulting.

…because [Jesus’] priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,–that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and **its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins **which we daily commit…[Chapter 1]

The first question to raise here is: From where does the Council of Trent get the notion–biblically or otherwise–that Jesus had any intent to leave something visible? Hmmm…

He took bread and wine. These are every day material elements. He infused them with Divine meaning, then told his disciples to "do this " (ritual sacrifice) as a memorial (ritual enactment).

On that final Passover night, He said “take and eat,” knowing full well that food and drink is consumed by the body and eventually decays along with it. “Do this,” He said, “in remembrance of me.” Of course, we all realize that the memory we have of what he has done for us on the Cross is also unseen. His teachings at the Last Supper are very much like those at other times. His emphasis was continually on the invisible, as when he tried to get Nicodemus to see the light:

Jesus used the material to help us understand the invisible. Your separation from the faith of the Apostles has watered down the meaning of what He was doing.

**Matthew 9:13 ** Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

When we contrast Jesus direct teaching with the statements of the Council, we see that these men of Trent had fallen into the same trap as the Pharisees. Session 22 (above) declares that “the nature of man requires” something visible to represent a sacrifice in order to maintain proper piety. But this is precisely the problem that Jesus came to remedy among we of little faith.

If this were true, then He would not have set up the physical blood sacrifice in the first place. Both things are true and valid. There is a material that points to the eternal.

To our great detriment, we place inordinate emphasis and trust upon physical things. The nature of man is hopelessly corrupt, yet He offers us a spiritual remedy of faith:

Matthew 16:8-11 Jesus asked, “You of little faith…How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

You have taken this comment about the yeast of the Pharisees out of context, apparently to support that the literal sacrifice of the mass is not done according to Jesus’ intention.

The flesh profits nothing, and our only hope is in the last high priest–Jesus Christ the Lord. He completed the Great Work on the cross, where he declared that “it is finished.” His final sacrifice would satisfy the heavenly Father in redeeming those who were otherwise lost. In direct opposition to the Council of Trent, we have this in the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

So, the question I pose to the forum is this:

How is it possible to view the command of Jesus to “do this in remembrance” as an instruction to a perform a ritual sacrifice?

There is no other way for us to understand it. This is the manner in which He taught it. He showed this to His Apostles, and they handed it down to us to the present day.

Heretics have been denying this since the beginning.