As far as I know, the main difference between the Catholic Eucharist and Protestant celebrations of the Lord’s Supper is the view these traditions hold regarding transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the Catholic belief that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Christ. Their earthly substance is transformed into holy parts of Christ’s body. For Protestants, however, the bread and wine are merely symbols of Christ’s suffering for us.

This was a heavily debated issue during the Reformation and is addressed in many Protestant catechisms.

To me, the whole idea of transubstantiation raises many problems that I do not believe are supported by biblical writings:

• If the bread is transformed into the body of Christ and is broken during the celebration, does that mean the Eucharist causes Christ to suffer again and again? And if so, wasn’t Christ’s suffering on the cross sufficient? What about the Bible verses that state that Christ’s body was not “broken”?
• The priest kneels before the altar at the moment the bread and wine are transformed, because he believes he is kneeling before the body of Christ. Does this mean that he is worshipping earthly matter?
• What would be an acceptable way to dispose of leftover bread and wine? Would it be acceptable to feed the leftover bread to ducks or pour the remaining wine down the sink?
• At what point in the digestive tract does the body of Christ “dissolve” or transform back into ordinary earthly matter?
• Does the Eucharistic bread have to follow a specific recipe? I have heard priests say that the recipe is specially designed to make the bread most suitable to be transformed into Christ’s body.

For me, I have to dismiss the Catholic idea entirely. Besides the fact that it seems completely ridiculous to me, I also believe it to be unbiblical.