1) Transubstantiation comes from two Latin words---trans (change) and substantia (substance or nature). Transubstantiation is alleged to be the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. It is built on the premise that when the priest utters "This is my body" over bread and wine, that the "combustible" syllables of these four words ignite with such power, that unbeknownst to our cognizant senses, the substance of bread and wine miraculously change "by the force of the words" (CCC 1353, 1375). They are then abruptly replaced with something else entirely; namely, the very body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ in some mysterious, metaphysical form which leaves only the outward appearance of bread and wine (i.e., the color, shape, size, taste, weight and texture -- or "accidental" properties, remain unchanged in objective reality). Rome claims that this 24 hour-a-day miracle in Masses worldwide, "is the same power of Almighty God that created the whole universe out of nothing at the beginning of time" (Mysterium Fidei, 47). Briefly, Rome bases her specific view on the opinions of a lost, unregenerate pagan called Aristotle, setting the stage (we say) for a theological hurricane. Even if Transubstantiation were true, God would not involve Aristotle, for, "surely, the Lord God does nothing unless he reveals his secret council to his servants" (Amos 3:7).
2) M-16: Transubstantiation says what is bread and wine, becomes the Body and Blood of Christ
Response: If Christ meant for an actual change to be understood, there must be a verb which plainly says so; for the verb "to be" (eimi, i.e., "is") never has or conveys any idea of such a change (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 742). The usual verb to express such a change is ginomai, which means to "become" and signifies a change of condition, state or place. If the Lord meant to say that the bread became his body, I am not out of order to insist THAT is the verb the writer would have chosen...
There was (i.e., there BECAME) a great calm (Mk 4:39). The storm was changed (or turned into) calm.
Command this stone that it BE MADE (i.e., changed into) bread (Luke 4:3).
When the ruler of the feast tasted the water that WAS MADE (i.e., changed into) wine...
Your sorrow shall be TURNED INTO joy (Jn 16:20).
Almost thou persuadest me TO BE (i.e., TO BECOME) a Christian (Acts 26:28).
The third part of the sea BECAME (i.e., changed into) blood (Rev 8:8).
3) M-16: The root of [all] this is when John the Baptist proclaimed in John 1:29, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
Response: Irrelevant. If that's the root of your argument, then I would say that Transubstantiation amounts to a "seed that fell on rocky ground, but because it has no root, must wither away" (Luke 8:14).
4) M-16: The Passover lamb goes back to Exodus where...they were commanded to eat the flesh of the Lamb.
Response: It was not the eating of the Lamb that saved them, but the blood of the Lamb smeared on their doorposts.
In like manner, it's not drinking the blood of Christ that saves us, but having "faith in his blood" (Romans 3:25). Now while it's true that they did eat the passover lamb, Catholics always forget that the sin offering was never to be eaten by the congregation (Leviticus 4). So we have two choices: either eat Jesus the passover lamb (literally), or eat Jesus the sin offering (metaphorically).
5) M-16: The blood placed on the door of the householders [was] a memorial sacrifice.
Response: Agreed. But today, it is a memorial OF a sacrifice, not the dreadful idea that Christ, "daily offers Himself [in sacrifice] upon our altars for our redemption" (Mediator Dei, 73). Scripture denies any further daily sacrifices, period! (Hebrews 7:27). By faith, his blood is smeared on the doorposts of our hearts. Come Judgment Day he will "pass over" us as he did the households in the past.
6) M-16: Although the debate is not on sacrifice [we should touch on the sacrificial overtones of the Text].
Response: Agreed. However, the Bible doesn't support sacrificial overtones to the extent where Pope Gregory the Great concludes, " (Christ) in the mystery of the holy sacrifice, is offered for us again " (Sacrifice Unveiled, by Robert Daly, p. 156, on-line book). Scripture refutes him (Heb 9:25). Second, Trent stubbornly denies that the Last Supper was meant to be a simple memorial (Session 22, canon 3). Instead, they overinflate it by asserting that Jesus offered himself in sacrifice at the table before he went to the cross, and continues to do so... "again" and "daily"... as the Popes just said. Thus, "It is not a mere commemorative celebration; it is also a true and proper sacrifice" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 407).
NO! All the biblical criteria indicates that a "mere" memorial is exactly what was intended. Memorials help us remember important events. When God placed the rainbow in the sky, it was a memorial that he would never again inundate the earth with a flood (Gen 9:13-17). When he instituted the Sabbath rest, it was a memorial of creation in six days, resting on the seventh as a pattern to follow (Ex 20:8-10). When he instituted the Passover as a monument to their deliverance from Egyptian slavery, he said, "This day shall be unto you for a memorial" (Exodus 12:14). The tribes of Israel were to be remembered by stones of memorial (Exodus 28:9,12). When a certain woman poured expensive oil on his head, Jesus said this act would be reserved in Scripture as a memorial for her kindness (Matt 26:12-13). The prayers and alms given by Cornelius were said to stand as a memorial (Acts 10:2-4). Hence, a memorial is clear enough without importing the foreign concept of Transubstantiation into the Text. Let the gentle reader beware of the never-ending quantum leaps made in Catholicism to subdue the simplicity of the record.
7) M-16: When he says [Do this in memory, or] 'remembrance', that is the word anamnesis, which four times in the Old Testament refers to an offering that is a sacrifice.
Response: There is nothing surprising that the notion of sacrifice should be permeating the atmosphere. After all, the most unspeakable sacrifice was right around the corner. So yes, anamnesis may have sacrificial overtones, but Catholicism pumps up the word "memorial" with so much hot air, if it were a balloon, it would pop. The Greek words used in the New Testament for sacrifice are thusia and thuo, which are nowhere in this verse (Luke 22:19). Moreover, the Greek word anamnesis does not even mean "sacrifice". It means, remembering; recollection; a calling to mind, as the catechism admits (CCC 1354).
8) M-16: Anamnesis in the new covenant is making present the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus, not just remembering a past event. Protestant writer Max Thurian wrote, "This memorial is not a simple subjective act of recollection, it is a liturgical action. . . which makes the Lord present. . . which recalls as a memorial before the Father the unique sacrifice of the Son, and this makes him present in his memorial."
Response: First of all, I don't give a shiny shoe if any Protestant happens to agree with the Pope.
Nevertheless, Mr. Thurian says anamnesis RECALLS a memorial before the Father, while the catechism sneaks in that it "presents TO the Father the offering of his Son" (1354), something else entirely. In any case, both positions propose "making the Lord present", a redundant idea in light of the simple fact of his omnipresence (See #9). Both positions propose a person as well as a past event become "mysteriously present in a certain way" (CCC 1357, 1363). But a real memorial, by definition, recalls the real physical absence of people or events, not the manifestation of their real physical presence.
Furthermore, both positions neglect the repeated emphasis which declares that the physical presence of Jesus was going away! ...effectively, contradicting the thought of being "made present" via a liturgical Transubstantiation...
[He] knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world ... I go to prepare a place for you . . . Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more . . . I go away . . . But now I go my way to Him that sent me ... I go to my Father and ye see me no more ... Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come ... And now, I am no more in the world . . . (John 13:1, 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:10, 7:34, 17:11). And Paul confirmed that, "though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more [in the flesh] ..." (2 Cor 5:16). Thus, until we reach heaven, any idea of interacting with Christ's flesh is to be avoided, for he told us bluntly to "believe it not" when any claims of his physical presence are made (Matt 24:26; Mk 13:21).
Again, "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (John 16:7). All these "farewell speeches" lose their punch and power if the physical presence of Christ is present in the Eucharist!
9) OBJECTION: This is another case of both/and. We believe in his promise of the Holy Spirit AND the real presence of his physical anatomy in the Eucharist.
ANSWER: NO! We were promised only the former, not the latter (1 Cor 6:19). Indeed, the pneumatology of the Bible (i.e., the doctrine of the Holy Spirit) has given Transubstantiation a fatal case of pneumonia. True Christians already believe in the "real presence" of the Lord because he is, "not far from any one of us" (Acts 17:27; cf. Matt 18:20). "If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I lie down with the dead, there you are" (Psalm 139:8). He is a God near at hand (Jer 23:23). The very fact that Jesus is designated as Immanuel (God with us) further makes void the doctrine of the Real Presence, for, "nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Heb 4:13). But these truths, which no Catholic denies (CCC 1373-4) have unfortunately metastasized into the hellish desire for his body parts as well, which serve no purpose whatsoever.
10) M-16: In the New Testament, anamnesis used in Hebrews 10:3, refers to the old covenant sacrifice.
Response: Yes, O.T. sacrifices served as a remembrance of the sins of the people, for, "in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year". But while it is accurate to say a sacrifice can serve as a memorial, it simply does not follow that whatever serves as a memorial must be a sacrifice (as I clearly showed in #3). A blueberry may be blue, but not every blue object must be a blueberry! Thus, the word anamnesis, as used by Jesus at Supper, does not necessarily imply that the bread and wine serve as a sacrifice, contrary to the catechism which categorically demands it:
"Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice" (CCC 1365, 1357, 1362).
We do thank catechism editors for their heartfelt opinion, but it's nothing but a pseudo-intellectual sham to demand it when the consensus of every reasonable Greek scholar on planet Earth would sternly tell them that the Text does NOT demand any such thing!
11) A PAST EVENT CANNOT BE SUMMONED INTO THE FUTURE INSIDE A PIECE OF FLATBREAD!
OBJECTION: [You do not realize that] "Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us, but actualizes them; makes them present " (CCC 1104, 1366, 1368, 1409) so that they do not, "remain confined to the past, since all that Christ did, participates in the divine eternity and so transcends all times " (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11-13).
ANSWER: Did the Exodus event transcend all time barriers and make itself "present" years later at the Last Supper? NO!
It happened only once; "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8). It is therefore irrelevant that God sees everything from the perspective of a "divine eternity which transcends all times." HE may see things that way, but we DO NOT. The magisterium is hiding behind the esoteric language of a "divine eternity" or an "eternal NOW" to justify breaking the real space/time dimension God has created us to live in, and we are not impressed.
Face it. Just because God knows the end from the beginning, does not mean that beginning at the Last Supper, the end of the crucifixion had already taken place in an "eternal NOW" at the dinner table hiding in bread and wine.
12) OBJECTION: Since an act, once completed, has no more objective existence except in the memory of a conscious being...
[Note: WE AGREE]
...subsequent acts that commemorate the past act, specifically those acts that are the exact replica of the original act (such as the Mass is to the cross) serve to provide the original act with a continuing objective existence (Not By Bread Alone, by R. Sungenis, p. 127).
[Note: WE DO NOT AGREE].
ANSWER: There is absolutely no such thing as an "exact replica" of a past event...or even of a current event. For example, any duplicate performance of a Broadway show will contain flaws and flubs and will never duplicate the original with precision. How much less credible is it to believe that an event from 2,000 years ago can be given a "continuing objective existence" in the here and now? On the contrary, in Christian Communion, the meaning of the event and its application to the doorposts of our hearts is made present once again, not the event itself!
Furthermore, the magisterium supposes that a bloody sacrifice once offered to God in the past, can be set free from the chains of antiquity and thrust into the future to be offered today in an unbloody manner. Wait a minute. Were we not just told that the Mass is an "exact replica"? Excuse me, but a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice are clearly not replicating the... "same thing"...regardless of what the catechism says (CCC 1365, 1367).
13) M-16: [We eat the] glorified flesh and blood, not Jesus' human form...
RESPONSE: It may surprise you to learn that you can't even be sure of THAT. In fact, Catholics are up a creek without a paddle when it comes to knowing if they drink the pre or post resurrection blood. Why? Because the Pope gives us two conflicting views. The first is that the blood they drink is the very blood Christ gave up on the cross (CCC 1353, 1365), which by definition, is his non-glorified, pre-resurrection blood. The second tells us the very opposite; namely, "The flesh of the Son of Man, given as food, is his body in its glorious state after the resurrection", which by definition, is his glorified, post-resurrection blood (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 18).
While I thank M-16 for revealing where he stands, I wonder how he reconciles his post-resurrection position with the catechism? He cannot have it both/and, like the Pope foolishly wants it. And so, after you answer that question, we would like to ask another. Since Jesus was clearly not yet glorified when he shared the Passover meal with his disciples (John 7:39 and 17:5), how could a pre-crucified, non-glorified Christ at the Last Supper offer the disciples a cup of his post-resurrection, glorified blood?
Don't tell me. It was all happening in the "eternal NOW of a divine eternity"?
Yes, I thought so.
14) M-16: [Jesus speaks metaphorically about being the "Bread of Life"] up to verse 47, [but beginning] in verse 48, Jesus transitions when he says again, "I am the Bread of Life", [but this time] away [from the idea of being] metaphorical. He [now switches gears and] is talking about a new, non-metaphorical bread which... when that bread is eaten, one will not die.
RESPONSE: First of all, I utterly disavow the idea of Jesus making a "transition" in the midst of his failing Algebra students (unbelievers), and to solve the problem, the RCC would have us believe he decides to graduate them into Chemistry (Transubstantiation). See opening statement #12. Also, John 3:12 & Luke 12:48 explicitly deny that Jesus would issue a diploma in Transubstantiation to a flunking class of fair-weather followers, let alone the fact that every RCIA class would do the same. Even they require faith before taking Communion, and we say that is exactly what Jesus was aiming at when he...
15) M-16: kicks it up a notch. He says 'truly, truly', making an oath, solemnizing it.
RESPONSE: Well if Jesus was kicking it up a notch with cannibalistic connotations, your position demands that Jesus again switches gears and kicks it down a notch in the next chapter. In John 7:37, he invites the spiritually thirsty to be quenched by "rivers of living water"... (directly stated in the Text to be metaphorical for the Holy Spirit). Ergo, Jesus was not always shifting gears speaking in 4-wheel drive terminology. He was driving steadily with an automatic shift, cruising the highway to heaven, waiting to pick up hitchhikers by faith alone. When we compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13), we see the unfolding tapestry of a metaphorical drinking manifesto that runs rampant in the Bible. Essentially, if the drinking of a liquid is metaphorical in 1 Chronicles 11:19, Isaiah 12:3, 55:1, Jeremiah 2:13, John 4:14, 7:37 and 1 Peter 2:2, then drinking blood is metaphorical in chapter 6.
16) M-16: If one eats of that [new, non-metaphorical bread, it will] provide a means to eternal life.
RESPONSE: No. If O.T. believers were saved without the Eucharist, then N.T. believers are saved without the Eucharist. Anyone in the O.T. who had a spiritual appetite was told to DRINK out of the waters of salvation and EAT [of me, per Isa 12:3 & 55:1; Proverbs 9:1-5; Sirach 24:21]. The same metaphorical invitation is issued by Jesus. Those who eat his flesh and drink his blood by placing their trust in his flesh (the obedient life he lived by fulfilling the law in our room and stead) and placing their trust in his blood (erasing the eternal death we so richly deserved), have indeed discovered the means to eternal life (Romans 5:10).
17) M-16: He goes on to say that the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh [that] ... enables one to attain eternal life (vs. 51).
RESPONSE: 99 out of 100 Bible commentaries will tell you that the flesh Jesus was referring to in vs. 51 was that flesh which he would henceforth give on the cross, and not his flesh for public consumption.
18) M-16: "Spirit" in Scripture never means symbolic.
RESPONSE: I never said that it did.
19) M-16: His words are Spirit and Life, means that his words are life-changing, and life-giving.
RESPONSE: I agree 100%. But that's just the point. Catholics typically argue that Jesus was obligated to correct his audience if he did not mean for them to actually eat him. But he did correct them! He warns against a literal take on the discourse by repudiating their cannibalistic conclusions , effectively saying that to eat his actual flesh would "profit them nothing". These folk needed to be "born again by the word of God" (1 Peter 1:23) and the Text indicates they were not (6:64). Hence, "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (6:63) carry the potential of producing new and eternal life (6:68) which, ipso facto, makes it plain that any thoughts relating to cannibalism were utterly mistaken. When his words are accepted via the "foolishness of preaching" (1 Cor 1:21), this act of the intellect will then lead to eternal life (6:68). Considering that in the O.T., "You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off " (Lev. 17:14), and in the N.T., drinking blood is forbidden (Acts 15:29), the notion of literally drinking the blood of Christ must be a fatal error. Salvation is not found by ingesting a bloody elixir. Drinking it metaphorically however, makes perfect and delightful sense (O.S. #8).
20) M-16: Jesus then goes on to [switch gears, and rather than use] the term translated 'eat' [esthio] he uses trogo [to gnaw or chew, soliciting a] crunching sound.
RESPONSE: Here we go again with Jesus in 4 wheel drive. Now, while I'm not disputing the meaning of trogo; let's be honest; seldom do Catholics ever "gnaw, chew or crunch" the Eucharist in either liquid or solid form. Most will tell you that after its placement on the tongue, they simply let it melt on the roof of their mouth --(my experience for 25 years)-- allowing it to glide down the hatch with no assistance whatsoever from the teeth to gnaw or chew, let alone that there is ever a "crunching sound". Or, if impatient, they allow the main game-player, the tongue, to gingerly peck at the wafer stuck on the rooftop to get rid of it ASAP. Consequently, in practice and in precept, the meaning of trogo is out of sync with a paper thin wafer which hardly ever falls victim to being gnawed, chewed or crunched in any real, vivid sense. Augustine said, "The true recipient is, he who eats internally, not he who eats externally; he who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth."
21) M-16: In that era, there was no figurative usage of trogo, even outside the bible [so this switch in terminology proves that Jesus was speaking literally rather than metaphorically).
RESPONSE: Similarly, Karl Keating supposes, without proof, that the word "to chew" (trogo) "is not the language of metaphor" (Catholicism & Fundamentalism, p. 247). We simply ask, "Why not?" Why would a stylistic variance demand we conclude a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical one? As already mentioned, any given word or words can be used metaphorically (O.S., #8). Apparently, you're taking it for granted that the word "chew" cannot be the language of metaphor because it appears to be more graphic than the mere mundane "to eat". The truth is, however, there is nothing intrinsically graphic about the word "chew" (trogo) that would lead us into the territory of Transubstantiation, and thus, this hypothesis is unwarranted. What my opponent does not consider is...
A. Esthio is used in all of the Last Supper passages ("take and eat", not chew).
B. By the time of John's gospel, the Greek word for "chew" had become synonymous with the ordinary word for eat (esthio). True, originally, trogo was used of animals and conveyed chewing, or mastication, but over time, the word had gradually begun to replace the more common "to eat" (esthio). According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, "John. . .seems to follow a usage, which generally replaces esthio with trogo" (Leonhard Goppelt, Gerhard Friedrich, editor, Vol. 8, p. 236-237).
C. The simple possibility of stylistic variance. For example, in John 21:15-17 Jesus asks Peter three times, "Do you love me? " In the first two questions, he uses the Greek word agapeo for love. In the last question, he switches to phileo. Greek scholars have long noted that there is no essential difference between the terms and are used interchangeably. In the very same passage, Jesus also varies his metaphors. "Tend my sheep" is used twice. "Feed my lambs" is used once. Is Jesus in 4-wheel drive again? No. The simple solution is probably the best solution. He's driving with an automatic shift set on cruise control. In other words, both metaphors use pastoral imagery to make the same theological point; namely, that Peter is given a pastoral responsibility for the flock. Therefore, the difference between tending sheep and feeding lambs is nothing more than a shifting stylistic variance, rather than what the Roman church would have us believe in John 6; namely, a shifting theological variance. When all is said and done, the variance between "to eat" and "to chew" does not in any way imply that the object of our chewing is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
22) M-16: Next I want to look at the Book of Hebrews.
RESPONSE: So do I. It is crucial to remember that Jesus was alive when saying, "This is my blood of the New Testament". Why? Because...
A. A pre-crucifixion, blood-eating sacrifice at the Last Supper leads to a theology of a live sacrifice going on at table, with the blood still in it. But God strictly forbid the practice of eating a live sacrifice with the blood still in it (Lev 17:11-14). That restriction instantly debunks the idea that Jesus broke the space/time dimension in order to give himself in sacrifice before he went to the cross just so the apostles could drink his blood.
B. Hebrews 9:16-20 says, "FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR; FOR A TESTAMENT IS IN FORCE [only] AFTER MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES"
To put this in perspective, Jesus, the Testator, was inaugurating his last will and "new testament" at the Last Supper. We are being reminded here that a person's last will and testament is not in force until that person is dead in real space and time. Up until that point, the will is ineffectual, having no strength at all. Christ's "last will" then-- pictured in the Last Supper Eucharist -- had no strength at all until he was actually dead. Ergo, the Catholic claim that the Eucharist has the strength to bolster our physical health and "charity", cleanse us from past sins, preserve us from future sins, and that it wipes away venial sins, cannot be true (CCC 1509, 1323, 1393-4, 1395).
It follows then that if the contents of a person's will are useless and have no strength at all unless the Testator has died, then Transubstantiation did not occur, and thus, the contents of the cup Jesus held, and by extension, the bread, have no strength at all to be "the cup of salvation" they claim (CCC 1355). It is conclusive, therefore, that the bread and wine had to be symbols, since the reality of the crucifixion had not yet taken place. Jesus did not give himself in sacrifice in "the divine eternity of an eternal NOW" at Supper, but went to the cross, no sooner and no later, than the appointed time; "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; John 7:30, 8:20). Accordingly, since the momentos of bread and wine did not carry any efficacious power back then, they certainly don't carry any today.
23) M-16: Paul writes [in 1 Cor 11:27] that when one eats the Body OR drinks the blood, one partakes of the Body AND Blood of Christ. That is [how we justify consuming] it in either form [so we do not need to take both, even though we may take both].
RESPONSE: In light of the RCC's frequent advisories that this or that must be both/and, we stand in utter amazement that the crystal clear command of Jesus Christ to take both bread AND wine is so quickly thrown under the bus (!!!). Now, what my zealous opponent has omitted to report is that vs. 27-29 of the KJV... (Debate Rule #10)... does not use the word OR...
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner...
28 let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup...
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily...
So let's get serious. The word OR simply cannot carry the weight to abolish our marching orders to partake of both! We do not believe for a nanosecond that the idea of Communion by taking either/or, was ever in the mind of Paul or anyone else for 1,400 years until the Council of Constance reared its ugly head. Following Constance, Trent tells us that, "Even though Christ administered this venerable sacrament to his disciples under the form of both bread and wine, nevertheless, in spite of this, the custom of Communion under only one kind must now be held as law ".
WHAT?! Here before your very eyes, in spite of Jesus Christ, a custom is made to over-rule Holy Writ! Hence, "You make the commandment of God of no effect in order to keep your tradition", is rightly applied here there can be no doubt (Mk 7:13). The Lord said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35), but that is exactly what the RCC has done by disobeying the express command to partake of both! Amusingly, Trent cites one of the reasons to avoid the cup as "long beards on men", ostensibly to save "jesus" from dribbling off the hairs and splashing to the floor like a raindrop. I have a hunch that beardless Catholic women with rosy complexions wonder why any of this nonsense should be applied to them! In any case, common sense tells us that if Jesus (or any Pope for that matter) was really concerned about long beards, they would have left instruction to cut back the beard rather than upset the entire Christian world by so audaciously breaking the Scriptures.
Word total: 4,998