Is the Eucharist Really Just a Symbol? 5 Convincing Proofs that Say that It’s Not

149 Comments

1. Thank you for the research! This was definitely educational!

   1. Thanks, Maria! That was my intent 🙂 Do with it what you will–but at least now you know!

2. For this last semestar I went to religious education for college students, and the topic of the whole semester was Holy Mass. When the priest talked about the Eucharist it was a huge eye opener for me because I really understood it for the first time (I’m 22 and I was raised Catholic).
   It’s such a complicated subject so a lot of priests don’t talk about it often, because it’s hard to explain.
   But he made some great points, some of which you talk about here, all corroborated with quotes from the Bible. When he explained the meaning of Last Supper and connected it to Pesach/Passover we were all blown away, and the whole auditory went silent.
   I whish I could share it with you but we live in Croatia and all of his homilies are in Croatian.
   If you want I can give you his e-mail and I’m sure he’ll be glad to answer your questions ( he lived in Canada and the US, no language barrier 🙂 )

   1. That sounds really interesting! I think I’m sufficiently convinced for now though, thank you 🙂

      1. “sufficiently convinced”?
         You are funny. This Eucharist ‘thing’ grows on you, and sucks a person in like flowers do a bee; the Sweet Love of Jesus.
         Beware!

      2. lol. Thanks for the warning!

   2. Could you send me the comments …I have a protestant friend that breaks her own bread in her bedroon as she watches her online church…syas it is between her and God

3. I’m really enjoying this series, Brittany, and glad you are witnessing to truth as found in scripture and the early Church beliefs. I have two “nuances.” While we believe the miracle of transubstantiation does occur with Christ’s words of Institution, saying “poof” makes it sound a little like a sudden magic act! The Holy Spirit is present at the altar and acting upon the elements of bread and wine from the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer. And while it is true that Christ’s body and blood (and soul and divinity) are present as long as the appearance of bread and wine remain, when we consume Him in this way, WE become the form of Christ. He “abides in us and we in him” (John 6:56). So his presence is not LOST by digestion, but made intimately personal. As Paul says, “it is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” (Gal 2:20). God bless your journey!

   1. lol at the first one. It kind of IS magic! (Not the sorcery kind, but the miracle kind)

      And the second one–yes. Thanks for the clarification. Like I’ve mentioned before, I’m not even Catholic so I’m doing my best! lol 🙂

      1. “I’m not even Catholic so I’m doing my best”???? Truly you are doing MUCH better than that. You are doing a great service of charity to Christ’s Body. Keep it up.

      2. Well, I can’t very well do BETTER than my best, now can I? But thank you. 🙂

4. Very interesting read!

   1. Thanks, Janell!

5. Just wanted to share with you how much I’m enjoying this series. My husband and I are both Catholics reverts…and watching you explore this on your blog reminds us of our own journey to strengthening our faith in search for the Truth. Well done.

   1. Thanks! I hope you are learning a lot (or rather, it’d be awesome if you already knew all of this!) and feeling inspired and strengthened 🙂

6. Hi Brittany,
   This series is fascinating, and I love reading it!
   I had a question about John 6:33 though — (Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”).

   If Jesus is talking about never thirsting and never hungering and we know that’s not literal (because who of us has not ever been hungry or thirsty), how do we know he’s being literal in the rest of the verse? It would seem to me that he would continue his mode of thought from one sentence to the next.

   What are your thoughts?

   1. I think that in this part He is not talking about physical hunger and thirst in this life. It means that he gives eternal life in which we’ll never be hungry or thirsty (and free of all other physical needs) by giving us his flesh and blood.If we eat his body we will have eternal life where we will not be hungry or thirsty ever.
      Mind that whenever he talked in metaphores He would later explain it to the apostoles, He would clarify it. But here, when his disciples say: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” “and many disciples left him then” (understandably, because it IS a hard teaching to understand and accept), He didn’t provide further explanations to the Twelve, He said: “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
      He was very clear on this. Would he really just let go of his disicples over a missunderstood metaphore?

   2. That is a fantastic question. I have no idea. I can look into it for you, though! Honestly, what it came down to me, though, was after I had researched and looked at both sides, I asked “Looking at this as unbiased as possible, if I’d never heard anything about either side either way and I was trying to figure it out based on the text–which side makes more sense?” And for me, the position that it is real simply had WAY more facts in its favor. We’ll never know 100%, I imagine. But that’s my best guess.

      1. Megan/Brittany,
         Definitely not a theologian, but here is my best take. In John 6:27, Jesus instructs us not to work for food the perishes, but for food the endures for eternal life. The people then ask Jesus for a sign saying, “Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” Jesus then answers, “Amen, Amen I say to you, it was not Moses that gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven; my Father gives you true bread from heaven.” Jesus is the new manna that doesn’t just fulfill our physical hunger like manna, but our spiritual hunger. True sustenance endures for eternal life. So I think Christ is still literal in the sense that we will never hunger and never thirst, but he is referencing our spiritual hunger and spiritual thirst.

   3. Megan,

      You hit perfectly the difficulty with the text, that it contains both literal and figurative elements. The Catholic exegesis would say that the switch occurs in the middle of the discourse. Jesus is using symbolic language “I am the bread of life, etc” (He is no more literal bread than he is a literal door). But then he switches “I am the living bread that came down from heaven… and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” Since the discourse is given within the context of the feeding of the 5000 with literal bread and fish Jesus is predicting another literal bread that he will give which will be his flesh. Additionally, he then uses very graphic language for eating to emphasize the literal sense of his words.

   4. I understand your confusion, but I offer this for your contemplation.

      http://www.miraclesofthesaints.com/2010/10/miracle-of-eucharist-total-fast-from.html

7. Brittany,

   As a “cradle Catholic” I’m enjoying reading your series! You are tackling some big and often misunderstood topics of the Catholic faith with a lot of great information. I can’t imagine all the hard work and hours you are investing to compile such clear and concise posts about various beliefs of the Catholic Church, like the Eucharist. I too love learning about the early church fathers and the Eucharistic miracles are amazing! I know the teaching of the Eucharist is difficult for my limited mind to fully comprehend and that’s why I often say in Mass “I believe, help my unbelief.” Like you said, it takes faith to believe in Jesus’ teachings, but with faith comes much fruitfulness. May God continue to bless you on your journey!

   1. Thanks, Tracy! It IS a lot of hard work and hours, but it’s worth it, right?

      1. Brittany,
         Anytime we earnestly seek truth and Gods will for our lives, it’s ALWAYS worth it!

8. Megan, Jesus can be interpreted literally here. Assuming I’m properly disposed to receive Him, the Eucharist is completely restorative and eternal. Any spiritual hunger or thirst is fully sated at Communion, and if I died that evening I may never have hungered or thirsted again! Unfortunately, by that time I may have chosen to retreat back into sins both great and small, so my new spiritual hunger and thirst is not because Jesus has not filled me completely and permanently, but because I am a very imperfect vessel full of holes. His grace would “be sufficient” (2 Cor 12:9) if I didn’t squander it. Which is why the Church is necessary, a fountain of grace through the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist.

9. Brittany I know you’ve put a great deal of research into this.

   My concern is that the transubstantiation was decreed by a man, Pope Innocent III in 1215. It was not Jesus who The thought that a man can change a mere wafer and drink to Jesus’ physical body and blood is troubling to me. How can we be the creator of the Creator?

   We must also look at the Last Supper in context. It was Passover; a time when Jews celebrated God’s saving grace through the shed blood of a lamb painted on their doors. That blood was spilled to save them; now Jesus is saying, “This is my blood, spilled for you.” They would have understood the symbolism because the feast they were celebrating was in remembrance to a time when their people had to shed blood to be saved.

   1. Danielle, you are correct that the word “transubstantiation” was not “decreed” by Christ, but neither was the word “Trinity.” In both cases a theological vocabulary was formed to explain almost-inconceivable truths. We cannot, with our limited intellects, comprehend the fullness of a Triune God, nor can we adequately define and explain HOW Christ can be present in the Eucharist. “Transubstantiation” as a term, and as an explanation, was created by man (not just Pope Innocent, mind you, but over 500 patriarchs and bishops at the 4th Lateran Council backed up by the historical and infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church). But that doesn’t mean the truth it explains is not valid. The Catholic Church doesn’t “invent” truth, it simply teaches the truth given by Jesus Christ, and strives to explain what that truth reveals about God and salvation through Jesus Christ.

   2. Danielle,

      The author is clear above that the early church (long before the 11th century) believed that Jesus’ Body and Blood were truly and fully present, under the *appearances* of bread and wine.

      Popes do NOT make up doctrine, nor do they sit in committees to plot out which doctrine they will make up this month — instead they respond to issues. In the 11th century, the question of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was brought to a very public head, and the Pope responded by explaining/defining in no uncertain terms what the Church had believed up to that point.

      Regarding the connection to Passover. God gave the words, rules, articles and gestures for Passover. The Jews were to follow very strict ordinances here. NO changing of the words. God set it forth, only God can change it.

      And Jesus changed the words.

      No-where in the Passover celebration do we find words about “This is My Body” and “This is the chalice of My Blood”. These words were said in the context of the Passover celebration itself – during the time when the words were to be the same from one year to the next.

      Yes, they would have understood the symbolism – and they would have understood the SIGNIFICANCE of what He was saying. Perhaps not fully just yet – that took the power of the Holy Spirit given to them at Pentecost, to fully understand.

      And there-in lies the power of transubstantiation. It is not “man” being creator of the Creator – if anyone has that honor, it would be Mary who bore Him in her womb and nursed Him at her breasts. In the Eucharistic Prayers, we “implore (God the Father) by the same Spirit, graciously make Holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood of Your Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.”

      The Holy Spirit has the power; we humbly request – because Jesus TOLD us to do so.

   3. The question of “How can the Catholic church just DECIDE things years later” was a big one for me too. Thankfully, that’s not what actually happens. Instead, the church simply believes what she believes and then offers a formal decree when teachings are challenged in order to clear up any misconceptions.

      For example, I’ve never told my children not to throw our pet down the stairs. Not because they can, but because I’ve never felt the need to. It’s assumed to be common knowledge. If my children were ever to try this or ask if it were okay, however, then I would have to officially tell them no. The church does the same thing. They don’t decree a bunch of things people already know. (“The sky is blue!” “Yes… we know….?”) Instead, they clarify when challenged. I believe that’s what happened here.

      And if you look through the early church fathers, you would see that they all believed in it. So it wasn’t just invented later.

      Also–I agree that the Jews would have originally thought symbolism. Which is why they were so confused and asked again and again, and why Jesus had to keep repeating the same message again and again, and even using the literal words for “chew.” If they thought it was just a symbol–why would they leave? Their reaction doesn’t make sense in that light.

   4. As someone already said it is not a mere man who transforms the gifts it is the Holy Spirit who does the transforming.

      While it is a theological nuance, the bread and wine do not become the “physical” flesh and blood of Christ. (It’s why eating and drinking the Sacrament is not an act of cannibalism). The physical properties of bread and wine still remain unchanged.

      Another way to understand the mystery is that the bread and wine, by the Holy Spirit, are perfectly united to the Person of Christ in such a way that what was two realities (bread/wine on the altar on earth and Body/Blood at the altar in heaven) become one reality (Body/Blood on earth and in heaven) without losing their distinctive physical attributes.

      You also mention the blood of the Passover. The “blood of the covenant” was not a liquid symbolic of lamb’s blood but was literally the blood of the lamb. The Paschal context would lead to the interpretation that the contents of the Cup of the Last Supper was literally the Blood of the Lamb

      1. “Another way to understand the mystery is that the bread and wine, by the Holy Spirit, are perfectly united to the Person of Christ in such a way that what was two realities (bread/wine on the altar on earth and Body/Blood at the altar in heaven) become one reality (Body/Blood on earth and in heaven) without losing their distinctive physical attributes.” This is misleading and very close if not exactly the understanding of the Lutheran faith. “In Lutheranism, there is a Sacramental Union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. In other words, Christ’s body and blood are present “in, with and under ” the forms of bread and wine. This is sometimes known as Consubstantiation http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

         Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon SJ spent much of his work on earth in working to teach the physical presence of Christ on earth. Typing in a search with his name and the words Eucharist, and or Real Presence and physical will bring up many helpful documents.

      2. No, that isn’t what Fr Paul was saying. The difference between the Catholic Church’s understanding and the Lutheran is this: Lutherans believe that what they receive is BOTH bread and Jesus’ body, BOTH wine and Jesus’ blood. Catholics believe it is ONLY Jesus’ body and blood, with the appearance of bread and wine. That’s what Fr Paul said. Further, Lutherans don’t believe the body and blood remain permanently, but that after the service the bread and wine return to being ONLY bread and wine, with no further need for respectful handling.

   5. You must also realize, Danielle, that the Jews during Passover HAD to eat the REAL lamb which had been sacrificed. It was not only killed, but they also had to “trogon” (crunch or gnaw) on it. If they didn’t eat it, the whole sacrificial meal was INCOMPLETE.
      This is what Catholics and Orthodox do. They ‘trogon’ the Paschal Lamb, because without eating Him, the sacrifice is incomplete.

   6. Danielle … Other people have responded to the bulk of your comment, so there’s no sense in repeating it, but it does seem that one small question of yours has gone unanswered: How can we be the creator of the Creator?

      The priest does not “create the Creator” when he transforms the bread and wine into Jesus. It is not as if a new Jesus is brought into being every time the Mass is celebrated. Instead, one and the same Jesus is made to be substantially present. I should also point out that He does not become a million wafers scattered all over the world either. Instead, those wafers become Him. Each wafer makes the one Christ substantially present.

      I hope that helps.

   7. The doctrine of transubstantiation was not invented in 1215. It had been universally believed and taught since the earliest Christians, as the article says. In 1215, it was formally defined by the Pope in response to attacks on the belief. Up until that time, there had been no significant controversy, so there had been no need for such a formal declaration. It wasn’t a new teaching, but a reassertion, in formal terms, of what had always been taught.

   8. Hmm, to add just a little bit on to what Nicholas Hardesty said, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, he does so ‘in persona Christi’, that is, ‘in the person of Christ’. So it is Christ (through the Holy Spirit) who is changing the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, not the man.

   9. Danielle,

      If you do some research you’ll discover a few things not so commonly known about the Last Supper.

      1. The Essenes were a sect of devout Jews who would not set foot in the temple in Jerusalem because it had become so corrupt (even though Jesus prayed and preached there, and later cleansed it).

      2. This meant that the Essenes had the misfortune of having to celebrate their Passovers without a sacrificed lamb.

      3. When Jesus instructed His disciples to prepare a room for the New Passover, he directed them to look for a man carrying a pitcher of water. Men did not carry water in those days, only women did – except for the Essenes, who were celibate. This is the scriptural indication that the Upper Room was in the Eassene (eastern) quarter of the city. Archaeological findings have since confirmed the fact that the Upper Room was in fact the prayer room of the Essenes. Jesus chose to celebrate the Last Supper/New Passover with them.

      4. Now. Recall there was *no sacrificed lamb* from the temple to celebrate with! And so it had to be – by long planned divine decree! Because the very Lamb of God Himself was (not on. but at. the Table) to feed His disciples that night with His own flesh and blood, confirming, “This is my body” (the flesh of The Lamb) and “this is the chalice of my blood” (the blood of The Lamb). The era of animal sacrifice was over. This was the one, eternal sacrifice, the only one acceptable to God (Who, if you read the Old Testament, actually detested the animal sacrifices and thundered against them, even though it was necessary for His People to undertake them).

10. Enjoying your series! I’m a revert to Catholicism. What brought me back was my absolute, adult belief in the Eucharist as Jesus’ body and blood. I enjoy reading other people’s account of their journeys to (or back to) the Church.

    1. Thanks, Katie! That’s what started me really looking into things more intently too.

Comments are closed.