By far the strangest doctrine in any Church is the doctrine of Transubstantiation. To give the definition found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651)." (1)
As you can see, the Catholic Church officially teaches the strange idea that, upon being consecrated by a priest, the bread and wine consumed during the Eucharist literally become the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. This teaching, as I intend to demonstrate in this article, is contrary to truth in every conceivable way. It is not true historically, scientifically, or Biblically.
The historical argument
As can be expected, it is extraordinarily hard to pinpoint exactly when Transubstantiation first entered the Church. In my attempts to do so, I have found a number of proposals, the most popular being that the Roman Catholic Church absorbed the Roman Mithraic practice of consuming Mithras' flesh and blood. Regardless, it seems that there is no known answer of exactly when belief in Transubstantiation entered Christian circles. What can be demonstrated, however, is that it was not until Catholicism had been fairly well established that such a belief became widely accepted, and it was not until Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. that it became dogmatically entrenched. It turns out, many in the early Church, including those whom Catholicism has canonised as Saints, actually referred to the Eucharist as a symbol of Christ's sacrifice.
To give just one example, let us consider St. Augustine of Hippo. In Expositions on the Psalms, Augustine wrote "But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (2)
This quote is of particular note, not only because it shows Augustine, considered by many to be the greatest of Church "Fathers" (3), did not take Christ's words literally, but that he very specifically preached a more "Protestant" interpretation of John 6, as opposed to the typical Catholic interpretation. Whereas Catholics often erroneously claim that John 6 indisputably proves that the Eucharist is literally Christ's flesh and blood, "Protestants" often point out that Jesus said "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63). In other words, it seems Augustine took a similar interpretation to modern "Protestants", almost to the letter. We'll address John 6 a little more later.
For now, another thing I am more interested to address is the conflict between Transubstantiation and the "infallible" declarations of the Council of Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon did not directly address the Eucharist. It did, however, cause a serious conflict with Transubstantiation by addressing the heresy of Monophysitism.
Monophysitism is the belief that Christ does not possess two distinct natures, human and God, but rather, possesses some blend of the two. Christ is not fully human, as we are, nor fully God, as the Father and Holy Spirit are. Thus, Christ is neither truly human or truly God. The Council of Chalcedon firmly refutes this heresy. In its definition, it declares "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable (rational) soul and body; consubstantial (coessential) with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather of the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning (have declared) concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." (4)
In demanding that Christ be acknowledged "in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;", the Council of Chalcedon admitted that Christ's natures are not interchangeable. Christ's divine nature remains divine, and His human nature remains human. They do not mix so that one becomes less of itself. Christ's divine nature does not lose its omniscience, for example. More importantly for this discussion, Christ's human nature does not gain omnipresence.
Yet, for Transubstantiation to occur, Christ's flesh must gain some form of multi-presence that is simply unattainable for human bodies. No one but God can be in more than one place at once, and so to say that Christ's flesh is in multiple congregations every Sunday is to say that Christ does not possess a fully human nature. Christ would not be acknowledged in two natures "inconfusedly", as the Council of Chalcedon declared, because they can be confused, with Christ's human nature gaining the omnipresence of His divine nature. Thus, the Council of Chalcedon causes a conflict with Transubstantiation.
This causes a range of problems, not only for Transubstantiation, but for Catholicism as a whole. Regardless of what you believe, a conflict of two allegedly infallible doctrines shows that at least one of them is fallible. Thus, we have two options. The first is that the Catholic Church is illogical, because it preaches two contrary things to be true in the same sense at the same time. In this case, the Catholic Church is false simply because it is illogical. God, by contrast, "cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy 2:13).
The second is that the Catholic Church is heretical, because it declares at least one falsehood to be infallible. In this case, the Catholic Church is false. Whether you accept the Council of Chalcedon as a legitimate Church Council or not, the Catholic Church as a whole is false. Its only hope of rescuing Transubstantiation is to declare that the Council of Chalcedon was not infallible after all, yet if it does this, one must question its other "infallible" declarations, including Transubstantiation.
You see, then, that just from Church history alone, Transubstantiation is found wanting. This is particularly embarrassing for the Catholic Church, as it often boasts of the strength of its historical background, even above the scriptures themselves. In spite of these boasts, the Catholic Church can be put on its back foot by any competent historian.
The scientific argument
One thing no Catholic will ever be able to get around is the fact that, even if all of scripture presented the doctrine, and even if all who are called Christians, both orthodox and heretical, affirmed that doctrine from the Ascension of Christ right up until 2022, it takes exactly no effort to prove that it is simply not true. Every Catholic who has ever taken the Eucharist knows that the Eucharist is not, in fact, Jesus' flesh and blood. The Eucharist looks like bread and wine. The Eucharist tastes like bread and wine. The Eucharist, when consumed, acts like bread and wine. This is so true that people with celiac disease cannot even safely consume it. For example, one young girl named Haley Pelly-Waldman (5), diagnosed with the disease, was effectively barred from the sacrament because she requires a gluten free substitute, which, according to the Code of Canon Law, is invalid (6).
It is no wonder that the bread and wine look and behave as bread and wine do, because the Lord Himself declared them to be so. In Matthew 26:29 (see also Luke 22:18), we read "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (emphasis mine). Jesus calls it the fruit of the vine because it is, in fact, the fruit of the vine.
There is, allegedly, an exception in the form of alleged Eucharistic miracles. It is claimed that there are multiple times in history when God has verified the Eucharist by causing the host to actually transform. These sparse and spurious claims are not as solid as Catholics who use them claim.
It is first worth noting that, strictly speaking, "Protestants" can afford to grant, for sake of argument, that these miracles are real. Although it seems highly unlikely that all, or even most of them, are truly miraculous, the Bible does not present miracles, and the appearance thereof, as an exclusively Godly thing. Rather, from the very beginning, we see that Satan has also been given some deceptive power, including the ability to deceive people with signs and wonders (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). When Moses and Aaron first stood before Pharaoh, Aaron cast down his staff, and it became a snake. Yet, Pharaoh's magicians were able to perform the same trick (Exodus 7:10-13). This same Moses, directed by the Holy Spirit, wrote the following words: "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deuteronomy 13:1-3).
We see, then, that miracles themselves are not necessarily proof of God's divine approval, and sometimes, He even allows actual miracles to occur in order to test the people of the faith. If we are faithful, we will resist miraculous "proofs" in favor of His word. If, by contrast, we are faithless, we will follow even another god if they can "prove" themselves through miracles. Yet, even Satan can become an angel of light, and his servants can just as easily imitate servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Thus, in the absolute worst case scenario, "Protestants" can quite comfortably accept that Eucharistic miracles are a thing, while we reject them as being proof of Transubstantiation.
Nevertheless, while accepting Eucharistic miracles as true is permissible, it is also unnecessary. To this day, not one Eucharistic miracle has been verified. Even with regard to more recent examples, examination of the substance falls short of science, to say the least. Documentation is shoddy, examination is limited, even the very types of experiments done are less than adequate. Personally, although this is not a scientific test, all I'd ask is that, once it has been verified that human tissue is present, one brave Catholic should drink it. If you truly believe that this is what you've been doing every Sunday, you shouldn't have any issue now that it's finally been confirmed.
But the big thing about Eucharistic miracles is that they would, indeed, be miracles. Even if we grant that there have been many Eucharistic miracles throughout history, the overwhelming majority of Catholics never see one. They eat the wafer, they drink their wine, and their body knows that it is bread and wine. The transformation that allegedly happened is entirely imaginary. No other miracle has ever occurred like this.
A comparable situation would be Jesus' famous miracle at the wedding at Cana. This miracle was so obvious, we read "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:9-10). Notice, the servants knew what happened, but the ones actually drinking the wine had no idea that what they had just consumed was, mere moments ago, water. They drank the former water, and it was wine. It looked like wine. It acted like wine. It tasted like wine. The water was wine. A verifiable miracle! All of Jesus' miracles followed the same pattern. He didn't swim up to the disciples and say "hey guys, pretty cool that I'm walking on water right now, right?" He didn't tell the storm "be quiet", and shout over the sound of thunder "cool, now we have sunny skies, let me go back to sleep!" He didn't scoff down the entire basket of fish and bread Himself and say "now wasn't that a lovely meal everyone?" No, every miracle that Jesus ever performed was detectable by the witnesses. It is an astronomical stretch, therefore, to say that the Eucharist, which supposedly turns into Jesus' flesh and blood upon consecration, would remain bread and wine in every detectable way, if indeed it was no longer bread and wine.
We see, then, that regardless of whether the doctrine of Transubstantiation is even taught in scripture, it is provably not true in reality. Unless we serve the most deceptive god in all of history, greater in deceit even than Allah, Transubstantiation is not true. Thankfully, therefore, we will soon show why it is as false Biblically as it is scientifically.
The Biblical argument
And now we come to the true meat of the issue: What does God Himself have to say about all of this? Through our examination of the history and science behind Transubstantiation, we have already briefly touched upon some relevant scripture, but before we proceed, we must first address the elephant in the room: Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, i.e. the study of interpretation, is a major source of the conflict here, simply because our methods of interpretation are different. Most "Protestants", myself included (though I utterly reject the term "Protestant"), hold to a doctrine called Sola Scriptura. Or, as I like to call it, the Sufficiency of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is the sole and sufficient authority in the Christian faith. We also tend to believe in the doctrine of Perspicuity. That is, scripture is mostly clear, and increases in its clarity the more important a topic is.
By contrast, the Catholic Church holds that scripture is equal to "sacred" tradition (7), and that, in spite of this, scripture cannot actually be interpreted by one's own skill. Rather, it belongs to the Catholic Church to interpret scripture for us (8).
Now that we have established that scripture is our common ground, we must establish which method of interpretation is the correct method. Otherwise, we will never establish what the correct interpretation is. Lest we get side tracked, I will only briefly do this.
First, let us take into account that, just as the early Church strongly disagreed with Catholicism on Transubstantiation, they also strongly disagreed with them on Sola Scriptura. Sadly, there were disputes on exactly which books were scriptures (which does not allow the Catholic Church to say "we solved those disputes, therefore we get to interpret scripture for you"). There was no doubt in their minds, however, that when God inspired a book or epistle, the Church ought to hold it in the highest regard. St. Jerome, for example, declared "That which does not have authority from the scriptures we can as easily despise as approve." (9). Augustine, likewise, declared "...among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life — to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book." (10). Most relevant to us for now is Saint Irenaeus, who was firmly opposed to the idea that one needed Apostolic tradition to interpret scripture. In Against Heresies, he wrote "When, however, they (heretics) are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth." (brackets mine). (11).
You see, then, how the early Church had a much higher regard for both the scriptures, and the human ability to understand them, than the Catholic Church currently has. This is quite in line with the scriptures, which boast of both their own authority, and their ability to make us wise. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, we are clearly told that the purpose of scripture, which is inspired by God, is basically teaching. We go to it to become wise to salvation, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Verse 17, which I have never heard a Catholic attempt to deal with, is especially powerful against Catholicism as a whole, as it tells us Scripture makes the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. Specifically relating to the Eucharist, we can say that, since the scriptures do not thoroughly equip us for the Catholic version, the Catholic version must necessarily be false.
Furthermore, as our ministry slogan points out, Psalm 119 speaks very highly of the individual ability to interpret scripture. Verses 97-100 tell us that meditating on God's word makes us wiser than our enemies, our teachers, and even the ancients. Verse 130 further tells us that the mere entrance of God's words gives understanding to the simple. You cannot have greater testimony to the Perspicuity of Scripture than this! If God's word gives understanding to the simple, what need have we to complicate this by adding wordy, complex doctrines on top of it?
And so we see that the best way to know whose interpretation is correct isn't to puff out our chests and insist "we are the one true Church, and so we tell you what scripture says". Rather, it is to sit down, open the book itself, and see whose interpretation flows most naturally from the text.
When history is set aside, Catholics do have three main arguments from the scriptures. The first is that, when Christ first instituted the tradition of the Eucharist, He said "this is my body", and "this is my blood". The second is that John 6, allegedly, shows that it is literal because not only did Christ say "my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink", but He also lost followers for saying these things. The third, which is somewhat rarer, yet common nonetheless, is that Paul warned the Corinthian Church that to mishandle the Lord's Supper makes one "...guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:27). Let's look at them in order.
First, do the words "this is my body" necessarily require that Jesus was speaking literally? To answer that, consider the image to the right. This is me, pointing to a photo of myself in college, with the caption "this is my body". Already you see the flaw. In our technologically advanced society, we are flooded with examples of times when "this is..." does not have to be literal. This is not me, this is an image of me. I am not pointing to my body, I am pointing to an image of my body. When we're talking about photographic representations, we are all very aware that "this is..." is not a literal statement.
Lacking Catholic background (and in many cases, even with a Catholic background), most Christians, and indeed most people, are similarly aware that when Jesus said "this is my body", not only did He not have to be speaking literally, but realistically speaking, He couldn't have been. His actual body was very much present at the last supper, and very much distinct from the bread. The same was true for the wine, which as we have already seen, He explicitly identified as the fruit of the vine. A question I have for Catholics is, given that I've never been in a church that doesn't read one of the "this is my body" passages before passing the bread around, or "this is my blood" before the wine is passed around, what do you think goes through my head? Cognitive dissonance, or gratefulness for the sacrifice represented by the bread and wine? It is not the practice of heretics to proudly declare the very scriptures they are violating mere moments before they violate it. When we read these passages (and reading them is all we do, at least in my congregation), we naturally interpret them spiritually.
But what of John 6? Does Jesus not say "my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John 6:55)? In truth, this depends on your translation, but given that, if we take the literal approach, all translation variations present Jesus calling Himself food and drink in some way, I feel like we can accept this rendering. But how do we deal with it as "Protestants"? Answer: The same way we deal with "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser." (John 15:1). Jesus, of course, is 100% God, 100% man, 0% plant. A man hung on the cross, not a carrot! A man walked out of the tomb, not a rose! A man sits in Heaven awaiting the times of restoration, not an apple tree! So what does it mean that Jesus is the true vine? It means that, in order to have eternal life, we must abide in Him. What does it mean that His flesh is true food, and His blood true drink? Well, Jesus actually clarifies this: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35). So what is Jesus talking about here? Faith! Come to Jesus, believing in Him, and He will raise you up.
But Catholics point out that Jesus actually lost followers here. They walked away saying "this is a hard saying", so does this not prove they were distressed because He wanted them to literally consume His flesh? Far from it. First, it is worth noting that John 6:60 can be rendered, as in the NKJV, "this is a hard saying, who can understand it?" Various commentaries have polar opposite views on this. Some argue that there's no way this is what it means, others argue that it almost certainly is. If the latter are correct, the disciples were not leaving because they understood Jesus literally, but because they didn't understand Him at all.
But let us set that aside and simply grant the more common renderings, like "who can hear it?" If we assume they really left because they didn't like the way they understood it, how do we know they understood Jesus to be talking literally? They didn't say "this claim that we must literally eat His flesh is hard to accept", it was just "this is a hard saying...". So how do we know what it was they took issue with? The Jews didn't like a lot of Jesus' teachings, including that He was their one and only ticket to Heaven, which is in view in John 6. So maybe they don't like that this "winebibber" (Luke 7:34) of a carpenter's son (Matthew 13:55) is telling them they have to go through Him for eternal life? Ultimately, these people don't give us enough information about their interpretation for us to say "they left, therefore they interpreted Him literally".
But the story continues after they leave. Jesus, knowing their complaints, asks "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." And this, of course, is where we return to Augustine's view that, by saying Jesus' words are spiritual, they are not literal.
Which, if you know your Bible, you'll know is par for the course with our Good Lord. During His ministry, Jesus was so cryptic, for lack of better word, that His disciples were shocked when He didn't use figures of speech (John 16:29, which it is worth noting occurred after the events of John 6). Jesus was very fond of using hard sayings, none of which would be sensible to take literally. Does one literally need to be born again (John 3:3) to have eternal life? Must one literally hate his family (Luke 14:26) to be a true follower of Christ? Must we literally pluck out our eyes if we sin? (Mark 9:47). Even outside the Gospels, Jesus uses some interesting metaphors, such as in Revelation, when He says He stands at the door and knocks (Revelation 3:20), or when those who survive the Great Tribulation are said to have washed their robes in His blood. Jesus' endless non-literal statements mean it would be inexplicably anomalous for this to be the exception.
But Catholics argue that it must be the exception, for how else could those who drink in an unworthy manner be guilty with regard to the body and blood of Christ? The answer to this is because though it is a symbol, the Lord's Supper is a very serious symbol.
See, one thing Catholics always miss is that Jesus didn't just say "this is my body" and leave it at that. Rather, He followed up with "this do in remembrance of me." And Paul expounds upon this in the very chapter in which he says those who drink in an unworthy manner are guilty of Christ's body and blood. In verses 23-26, we read "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes." We see, then, that the very purpose of the Lord's Supper has been very explicitly laid out. It is a ceremony of both remembrance, and of proclamation.
As an interesting side note, this is actually how Ignatius of Antioch, famous in Catholic circles for his statement "They abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ", used it. Ignatius was not writing about "Protestants" rejecting the Real Presence (as indeed Catholics would have to acknowledge, given that they contend Protestants did not yet exist), but about Docetists. These heretics weren't only rejecting the Real Presence. Let us read a little more: "For he suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself— not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only (12). It is only after this, in chapter 7, when Ignatius writes "They abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up." (13). From this, we see that Ignatius is not necessarily saying the Eucharist is the literal consumption of Christ, but rather, the symbol cannot exist without the reality. The bread and wine are Christ's body and blood, and so obviously Christ wasn't a phantom!
But since the Church "Fathers" are not authoritative, we can afford to ignore how Ignatius interpreted the Lord's Supper. What is of special note to us is that scripture strongly indicates no one else interpreted it literally either.
In scripture, we do see misinterpretations happening. The obvious example would be Nicodemus, who took Jesus' words a little too literally. Jesus straightened Him out, even rebuking him for being a teacher yet not knowing what He meant. Yet, with regard to Communion, we see no compelling evidence that anyone interpreted "this is my body" literally.
At this point, the temptation for the Catholic would be "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which in most circumstances is totally sensible. In this case, however, it is less than adequate.
I want you to consider, for a moment, how the doctrine of Transubstantiation sounds to someone who has never heard it before. I know for me, personally, it sounded particularly abominable. As much as I make cannibalism jokes in my personal life, I wouldn't want to actually try to eat the flesh of another human being. It's unhealthy, it's creepy, it's morally wrong. And most other people know that. Generally speaking, if you have not been raised in a culture where Catholicism is dominant or common (and often, even if you have), you instinctively react to Transubstantiation with disgust.
Now I want you to imagine explaining the doctrine to a first century Jew. These people have been told all their lives, by their teachers, by their family, by their friends, "don't eat pork, don't drink blood, don't eat pork, don't drink blood, don't eat pork, don't drink blood". If you then came along and told them "eat pork", or "drink blood", they'd flip.
And Peter did.
See, as much as Peter loved the Lord, he was also a lot less shy about rebuking Him than he should have been. When Jesus predicted His own death, Peter said to Him "this shall not happen to you", so Jesus called him Satan (Matthew 16:21-23). Not only was Peter adept at locking swords with Jesus on theology, but not even God could convince Him to violate Levitical law. In Acts 10:10-16, Peter has a vision wherein God presents him with a sheet full of animals the Law calls "unclean". In other words, here is God telling Peter "eat pork". Peter, ever the hothead, refuses. "Not so Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." This happened three times.
Now, first of all, blood is unclean, both in Levitical law (Leviticus 17:10-11) and beyond (Genesis 9:4). Just as Peter was familiar with "the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:17), he had also been taught "‘And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’" (Leviticus 17:10-11). In other words, Peter, as a first century Jew, believed that drinking blood was such a grave sin that God Himself would cut him off from Israel for it. Just as Peter said to the Lord regarding eating pigs, and the other unclean animals, "not so Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean", he would absolutely, without shadow of a doubt, have objected to any literal teaching that he was to consume blood for eternal life. As would any Jew.
As it turns out, not only did Peter not object, but he directly addressed the issue of consuming blood at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29). The conclusion? Don't do it. The decree of the Jerusalem Council concludes with "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell." (v28-29).
Abstain from blood. There are no exceptions noted. It doesn't say "abstain from blood, except, of course, for the Eucharist, which is the blood of Christ". In other words, that part of the Old Testament that says abstain from blood is still necessary. If the New Testament intended us to interpret the Eucharist as literal, which would stand in such stark contrast to the Old Testament, and therefore to the Jewish mind, it would absolutely have clarified this, and the Jerusalem Council would be one of, if not the best place to do it.
In fact, if you want to see evidence that the New Testament would clarify alterations to the law, the Jerusalem Council is an excellent example. Although the final conclusion is "abstain from blood", blood isn't even in view here. The issue being addressed is the necessity of circumcision. In the Old Testament, there was no question to ask. It's a requirement. So the New Testament clarifies no, it is no longer necessary to get circumcised. Thus, if the law on blood was repealed, at least for the case of the Eucharist, the New Testament would absolutely have clarified this. Peter would have objected, the Jews would have objected, someone would have said something about this blatantly non-literal teaching that would fly in the face of Jewish law if it was literal. And yet, nobody did. And because nobody did, scripture doesn't clarify it. Because scripture just leaves its originally very heavily Jewish audience to take the very natural interpretation, we can safely assert that the Eucharist was not understood to be literal, because it is not taught as a literal thing.
What is taught to be literally true, however, is that "...heaven must receive (Christ) until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:21, brackets mine). This teaching is reinforced by Christ's own words in Matthew 24:23 and Mark 13:21: "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it." And yet, Catholics claim "Look, here is the Christ", right there in their hands, or in their cups. Christ's body, which I'll remind you the Council of Chalcedon rightly said is not confusable with His divine nature, is said to return to the Earth every Sunday. Christ's counsel? "Do not believe it."
This is a Gospel issue
And so I will not believe it, and I strongly urge everyone on Earth to echo Christ in saying "do not believe it". Transubstantiation is a very obviously false doctrine. It is not true historically, it is not true scientifically, and it is not true Biblically. God could not have made it more obvious that Transubstantiation is a lie. But worst of all, because of how the Catholic Church has tied this to salvation, it is a Gospel issue.
In John 6:53, Jesus declares "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." The "Protestant" interpretation, as described earlier, causes no issues there. As we pointed out earlier, not too long before this, Jesus clarified what He meant: "He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." This fits in with other scriptures, which clearly present faith as the criteria for salvation. Yet, if we take the Catholic interpretation, then only those who accept Transubstantiation and receive the Eucharist can be saved, and no matter how much faith you have in Christ, if you have celiac disease, you're in trouble. Woe unto the false teachers who preach this sacrament, for Galatians 1:8 warns "But even if we, (the Apostles) or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (brackets mine).
Conclusion
With all of the above, it is clear that the Eucharist, as the Catholic Church teaches it, is false. It fails on every conceivable level. It fails on the level of history, because it was clearly absorbed into the Church from the surrounding pagans. It fails on the level of science, for even a devout Catholic knows that they aren't eating anything human. It fails on the level of scripture, because everything in scripture militates against it, right down to the very Gospel itself. Reading the word of God, which is as authoritative as if it came from His very lips, it is impossible for any sober minded person to take Transubstantiation seriously.
If it turns out I am wrong about this, then I will go to Hell in tears, and yet with an ironically clear conscience, for I put my faith in the one true God, and He betrayed me with extreme deception. However, as we serve a God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2), I am compelled by reason to assert that it is the Catholic Church that is deceptive, and that those who are trapped within its clutches are in desperate need of the freedom found only in Christ. Nothing but His grace brings us salvation, and nothing but faith accesses that for us.
References
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Paragraph 1413, 2003
2. Augustine of Hippo - Expositions on the Psalms
3. New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Augustine of Hippo (link)
4. Chaldedon, Bib Sac, 138:552:326, 451 A.D.
5. ABC News, January 6th 2006 (link)
6. Code of Canon Law, Canon 924, 1983 (link)
7. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION, DEI VERBUM (Link)
8. Council of Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books", 1546
9. Jerome - Commentary on Matthew, 398 A.D.
10. Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine", Book 2, Chapter 9 (link)
11. Irenaeus - Against Heresies
12. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnians, Chapter 2
13. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnians, Chapter 7