Transubstantiation
The bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, while continuing to look, taste, and behave like bread and wine.
What it claims
What Christ said is what is meant. Using categories from Aristotle, the substance, meaning what a thing most truly is, becomes his body and blood, while the accidents, the appearances available to the senses, remain. The change is real, not figurative, and the presence does not depend on the faith of the recipient.
Who holds it
The Church, defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and reaffirmed at Trent. Eastern Orthodoxy holds an equally but generally declines the philosophical term, preferring to call it a mystery.
The texts it stands on
- Luke 22:19-20 This is my body, which is given for you, spoken plainly and without qualification.
- John 6:53-56 Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you don't have life in yourselves. The crowd took it literally and left, and he did not call them back.
- 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Guilty of the body and the blood, and not discerning the body, which imply more than a memory.
Strongest case
It takes the words of institution in their most direct sense, it matches how the church spoke for most of its history, and it explains why Paul treats unworthy reception as so grave.
Hardest question
Critics argue it depends on a philosophy of substance that the biblical writers did not share, and that Jesus used this is language elsewhere plainly figuratively, calling himself a door and a vine.