Is not believing in transubstantiation wrong...?

No, it is not wrong. If you cannot in clear conscience and with an open heart believe something, how can it be wrong to be honest about it?

I was 45 years old when I received instruction in the Catholic faith, that included the need to accept transubstantiation as article of faith, from which I could then be qualified to receive this Sacrament.

I am a lifelong agnostic, a scientist, and a sceptic. So to accept something that in a material sense is nonsense might be thought impossible.

But my faith has never been founded on what I see materially, but in the myths and stories and mysteries and rituals that lead me to a much deeper set of truths. For me, the purpose was to enhance my capacity to love and be loved, and nothing else really matters.

I resolved transubstantiation by considering that all followers of Christ since his death must take on Christ's role and continue his mission. They, in effect, become the body and blood of Christ. The purpose of the last supper therefore is to make something as everyday as eating a meal become the reminder of who they are, as followers of Christ. This very special meal at the Eucharist is therefore this reminder that Christ is indeed arisen and alive within us, and the transubstantiation is the necessary ritual to bring this about.

When I put this to my instructing deacon, he didn't blink an eyelid at what could be a terrible heresy, but simply replied "ah, but we are what we eat".

i will grant 3 motives, from the attitude of having been in am evangelical Protestant custom earlier coming homestead to the Catholic Church. First, the Blessed Sacrament is -- properly, a sacrament. For some reason maximum of Protestantism classifies sacraments as "works" (of adult males -- thoroughly lacking the shown fact that the artwork finished by way of them is that of the Holy Spirit), and because they have an hypersensitivity to that word everywhere in the close to place of the word "salvation", they scrupulously ward off and disclaim *all* sacraments. Of the seven sacraments of the Church, purely 2 proceed to be in evangelical protestantism -- baptism and "communion" -- and those the two in the style of symbolic ordinances that frankly haven't any which potential to them previous the inescapable actuality that Christ mentioned they have been to be finished. (i've got confidence this comes under the heading of "getting into the process the motions", which became my different impact on a similar time as nevertheless in an evangelical church -- regrettably, or thankfully for me because it became out, what I examine in the Bible and what i became instructed approximately those watered-down remembrances did no longer upload up.) 2d, and that i've got confidence that's extra insidious between fundamentalists, is the tendency to cut back God to doing what they are able to % with their very own senses and their very own reasoning. They prepare eisegesis fairly than exegesis to Scripture. yet whilst it comes to the Eucharist which Christ instituted, the language and His reason is so clean and unambiguous which you would be able to fall lower back on such issues as "the word 'transsubstantiation' isn't in the Bible" to shelter its alleviation to symbolism, on a similar time as on the comparable time insisting that someplace else -- continually selectively -- the Bible is to be taken actually. (I in many circumstances hear from the comparable human beings with regard to the "rapture". additionally no longer in the Bible, and an faulty interpretation besides.) The third reason has already been pronounced: recognizing the presence of Christ in the Eucharist could propose that the Church became suitable approximately this all alongside ... and subsequently in the event that they believed this, and won Communion on that foundation, they could be "in communion" with the very Church from which they maximum intently and at circumstances vehemently separate themselves.

For 1500 years, it was the only belief. Those with the arrogance to second guess Christ and His Church should just go set up their own church with themselves as deity...

Oops. My bad.

dear friend...you are right. jesus never intended that his teaching on the bread and cup were to be taken literally. he was pointing to his death on the cross as he also clarified in john 6.63. also in 1 cor 11, we have pauls clarification that we do this as jesus said also in m e m o r y of christ. its similar to a photograph. the photogrpah isnt the person but a reflection of him or her. the spirit filled christian church, althoiugh not perfect, is more closely the true church of jesus on the earth today. acts 11.26. i encourge you to fellowship there. chrislandwer@yahoo.com

Jesus could not have meant that his followers were literally to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why not?

After the Flood of Noah’s day, when God gave man permission to eat the flesh of animals, he directly forbade man to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) This command was repeated in the Mosaic Law, which Jesus obeyed fully. (Deuteronomy 12:23; 1 Peter 2:22) And the apostles were inspired by holy spirit to renew the command against consuming blood, making that law binding upon all Christians. (Acts 15:20, 29) Would Jesus institute an observance that would require his followers to violate a sacred decree of Almighty God? Impossible!

Clearly, then, Jesus used the bread and wine as symbols. The unleavened bread meant, or represented, his sinless body that would be sacrificed. The red wine signified his blood that would be poured out “in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.”—Matthew 26:28.

The Purpose of the Lord’s Evening Meal

Jesus concluded the first observance of the Lord’s Evening Meal with these words: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19) The observance does indeed help us to remember Jesus and the wonderful things accomplished by his death. It reminds us that Jesus upheld the sovereignty of his Father, Jehovah. It also reminds us that by means of his death as a perfect, sinless human, Jesus gave “his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” The ransom makes it possible for any who would exercise faith in his sacrifice to be freed from sin and to attain to everlasting life.—Matthew 20:28.

Primarily, though, the Lord’s Evening Meal is a communion meal. Those involved are (1) Jehovah God, who arranged for the ransom, (2) Jesus Christ, “the Lamb of God,” who provided the ransom, and (3) Jesus’ spiritual brothers. By partaking of the bread and wine, the latter show that they are fully united with Christ. (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17) They also show that they are in “the new covenant” as spirit-anointed disciples of Jesus. These are the ones who will reign with Christ in heaven as kings and priests.—Luke 22:20; John 14:2, 3; Revelation 5:9, 10.

It is always wrong for a Christian not to believe the teaching and miracles of our Lord. I hope that you never received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord unworthily as you profess. St. Paul said to do so brings condemnation on oneself.

I think that it is fair to say that not believing and following the teaching of Jesus does make one a bad Catholic Christian. God bless!

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

Peace.

It is wrong, but so are beliefs in Trinity, Eternal Torment, Immortal Soul and other pagan influenced beliefs.

I hope it wasn't meant to be taken so literally. Ew.

No, to believe in it is a sin.

believing in any Catholic belief is wrong.