The apostle John recorded the first miracle of Jesus Christ which is changing the substance of something into another (e.g. water becoming wine).
When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and
did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the
water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom.
John 2:9 (ESV)
This is transubstantiation in the literal sense of the word. A change of substance includes a change of form.
Catholicism teaches that faith alone should be exercised in accepting the transubstantiation of the communion bread and wine. But this is utterly misleading. The reason is that in Catholicism the bread and wine that underwent transubstantiation is now , beyond any shadow of doubt, really, truly and 100% Jesus Christ himself only in the appearances of bread and wine.So, when someone sees the bread, he could say that He is Jesus Christ but looks like a bread. What we are saying here is that there is no faith at all (biblically speaking).
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction
of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)
The Synoptics had the record of the Last Supper. The Gospel of John had no record of it.
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Mark 14:22-25 (ESV)
Catholic faith states that what Christ meant was equivalence.
"This bread" is equivalent to "my body."
"This cup" is " equivalent to "my blood."
If Jesus was explaining that the bread is his body itself (in the form of bread),then, the apostle Paul would not call the bread " the bread" if it were no longer a bread after the blessing (cf: 1 Corinthians 10:26; 11:26).This highly implies that transubstantiation of the bread did not occur at the Last Supper.
Scrutiny of the words of Jesus shows that Jesus' words were contrary to Catholic interpretation. The reason why is that Catholic faith teaches that the bread is not Jesus' body unless it changed into his substance (i.e. Transubstantiation).
"This [bread] is my body." (No Sense of Any Change of Substance)
"This [bread] becomes my body." (Change of Substance)
After telling His disciples that the cup was his blood...Jesus did still refer to it as "the fruit of the vine" (not "my blood") which highly implies that no change of substance has occurred.The wine was still wine.
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me
shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
John 6:35 (ESV)
John 6 portrays two ways of consuming Jesus - figuratively and literally, trusting and believing as well as cannibalism. Therefore, we are of the need to address the texts as hermeneutically sound as possible.
Premise 1: Christ wants people to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life (John 6:54)
Premise 2: Christ said that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink (John 6:55)
Premise 3: Christ said that coming to him results into hunger-free state and believing in Him results into a thirst-free state (John 6:35).
Premise 4: Christ wants people to believe in Him to have eternal life ( John 6:35,36,40,47,64)
Premise 5: The disbelief of the many disciples made them go away but the apostles believe in Jesus (John 6:64,66,69).
P1 and P2 are coherent. Both show that Christ wants people to comsume him in a cannibalistic way. Hence, the disgust of the Jews and of his many disciples.
P3 shows that P1 and P2 are not meant to be understood as a literal consumption. It shows that consumption of Jesus is the same as coming to Jesus.The cannibalistic language was used to portray his real incarnation (John 6:38).
P4 and P5 strongly supports conclusion 2. Those who left Jesus did not want to believe in Him due but those who stayed, as the scripture says, believed in him ( did not literally eat him!).The reason the apostles alone came to Jesus by faith is that the Father has drawn them to Him (John 6:44).
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the
blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
participation in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:16 (ESV)
Paul explicitly identified the communion bread as "the bread we break." It is surely a blessed bread but a bread nonetheless.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the
Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and
when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body
which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way
also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and
drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and
blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:23-28 (ESV)
Paul explicitly identified the communion bread as "bread" in the context of what the Synoptic gospels had. It bolsters the evidence that Transubstantiation of the bread and the wine did not happen at the Last Supper.
We have cogently proven from the Holy Scriptures that "Transubstantiation" teaching is more likely to be unbiblical. The following were the summary of the Biblical arguments that has been exegetically put forth:
The New Testament consistently shows us that the communion bread and wine do not undergo change of substance. Rather, both were still what they were (i.e. bread in substance and wine in substance).
The Bread of Life discourse in John 6 does talk about Cannibalism but neither Transubstantiation nor the Eucharist meal was mentioned . The words of Jesus Christ himself about the cannibalistic consumption of his flesh is not left without clarification whether to take it literally or figuratively.In the immediate context, Jesus Christ himself spoke of the consumption of Him as equivalent to coming to Him and believing in Him (John 6:35).
There is not one Bible verse that speaks of 'transubstantiation' of the communion bread and wine. However, a change of substance was indeed recorded (water becomes wine) in John 2:9.If there were really a change of substance in the Eucharist meal, then,it must have been recorded in the Bible. The absence of explicit and implicit scripture revealed transubstantiation as a theory without biblical substance.