CHRIST IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Christ in the Eucharist
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist.
This demonstrates that opponents of the Church-mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists-recognize one of Catholicisms core
devotional doctrines. Whats more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their
interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of Johns Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will
be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that
took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him.
As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread
from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever
comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be
Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;
if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:51-52).
were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally-and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even
greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh
of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53-56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings,"
for there were none. Our Lords listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically.
If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ
explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5-12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by
Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples,
when they heard it, said, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable
ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail;
the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12-14).
But he knew some did not believe.
(It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples
drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christs followers
forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a
literal sense, why didnt he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples,
who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times
he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at
the Last Supper-and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual
food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and
he who believes in me shall never thirst." They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating
his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John
A. OBrien explains, "The phrase to eat the flesh and drink the blood, when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the
Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret
the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him,
which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (OBrien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this
use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only
metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that
there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors
because Christ is like a door-we go to heaven through him-and he is also like a vine-we get our spiritual sap through him.
But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John
He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live
because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or
"gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.
Their Main Argument
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is
the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this
means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded
his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means?
"Eat my flesh, but youll find its a waste of time"-is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christs flesh
avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from
the dead for no reason. Christs flesh profits us more than anyone elses in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the
incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b-18).
In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing"
refers to mankinds inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would
tell them. Thus in John 8:15-16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if
I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided
by Gods grace, is unreliable; but Gods judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line "The words
I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"?
No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary
to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to
Christs own flesh-the context makes this clear-but to mankinds inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words
I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used
that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of
the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44-45, 65).
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in
the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we
receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said,
"Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of
the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor.
11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could
eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Pauls comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real
body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that
so? Lets see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted
by examining the writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who
wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain
from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,
flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later,
Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made
incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which
has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh
is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20).
in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your
religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the
Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You
account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread
and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Masters declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the
senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith,
not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to todays Evangelicals and Fundamentalists:
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, This is the symbol of my body, but, This is my body. In the same
way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, This is the symbol of my blood, but, This is my blood,
for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit,
not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record
from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in
which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals
reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality-grace-being
conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not
to be used, but overcome or avoided.
One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about
mankinds salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be
if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter-he approves of it because he created it-and he approves
of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate