Catholic Apologetics on Catholic Truth - The Eucharist
1. Roman Catholicism's doctrine of "transubstantiation" -- the bread and
wine actually turning into God, and therefore "adorable" (Holy Souls
Book, p. 221) -- is based on Jesus' statement, "This is My Body."
However, in John 10 Jesus said, "I am the Door..." and elsewhere he spoke
figuratively ("I am the vine," etc.) in the same way. He did not mean the
door was literally being transformed into him/God, or that we should worship
a door.
This is really a silly argument, but a popular one, and it shows the extent that
some people will go to to try to disprove Catholic doctrine. "I am the Door..."
can have a metaphorical sense, for Christ is like a door, since one
goes to heaven through Him. He is like a vine, since all the sap of
one's spiritual life comes from Him.
Read John 15:1-9. In John 15:1-2 is Jesus telling us of His Father's gardening techniques?
In John 15:3 Jesus says (to His Apostles) "You are pruned already". Tell me, do you
think it hurt when God took the pruning shears to them? In John 15:5 Jesus tells His
Apostles they are branches. Do you think Jesus had lost his mind? Finally, in John 15:8
Jesus says "It is to the glory of my Father that you should bear much fruit, and then you
will be My disciples." What does this mean? Should Jesus' followers plant lots of fruit
trees in order to be His disciples? It is obvious that these phrases are meant to be
symbolic, not literal.
Now read John 6:53 to 66. Jesus says "...if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink His Blood, you will not have life within you." Many of Jesus' followers understood
this to mean exactly what Jesus said, and they left Him because of it. If Jesus REALLY meant they had to eat his Body and drink His Blood symbolicly why did He let them go? Why would Jesus be willing to lose followers because they misunderstood Him? The answer is simple: they DIDN'T mis-understand Him. Jesus meant exactly what he said. But, being God, Jesus knew there would be some who did not believe. In John 6:64 He says "But there are some of you who do not believe."
The doctrine of the Real Presence was first attacked in the year 1088 by Berengarius,
over 1000 years after Christ died for us, but he retracted it before he died. In the sixteenth century it became fashionable to give new and arbitrary interpretations
to the Scriptures in accordance with one's whim and fancy. Within 75 years there were over
200 different meanings given to the four simple words "This is My Body". In 1577 Christopher Rasperger even wrote a book entitled "Two Hundred Interpretations of the words 'This is My Body.'"
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 says "Brothers and sisters: the cup of blessing we bless, is it not
a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread we break, is it not a participation in
the Body of Christ?".
1 Corinthians 10:29 says "...because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing
the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation".
St. Paul also wrote: "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord
unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord" How can someone be
guilty if these are only symbols?
In the Catacombs the early Christians depicted the Blessed Sacrament on the walls as a
loaf of bread with the sign of a fish above it. The Greek word for fish is ixthus,
which are the initials for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior". Clearly this shows the early Christians believed in the Real Presence.
In the second century St. Ignatius declared the Docetae (second century) were false
Christians because "they did not receive the Eucharist, not admitting that it is the
Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ which was tormented for us".
Even Martin Luther, the Father of Protestantism, always maintained the literal interpretation of the words: "This is My Body; This is My Blood". He said he was tempted to deny the Real Presence in order "to give smack in the face of Popery," but the teaching of the Bible and all antiquity were too strong in its favor. He wrote "I am caught. I cannot escape, the text is too forcible."
Fundamentalists often interpret the "days" of creation literally and reject evolution,
but interpret "This is My Body" symbolically and reject the notion of the Real
Presence in the Eucharist. Why? Unless the words of Christ are taken in the literal
sense they become meaningless, incoherent, and Christ would be an arch-deceiver, for
He certainly taught, allowed, encouraged, and stressed the literal interpretation of
His words. The words "This is My Body" certainly involves a mystery, but Protestants
believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, which are also mysteries. We should not
reject mysteries because we don't understand them, but believe them on the authority
of the Revealer. Let us not forget John 14:6 where Jesus says "I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life." Paul was correct in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 when he predicts "The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths."
2. In John 6:64 Jesus says "It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh profiteth nothing."
Jesus is speaking of our bodies here, not His. Our earthly and natural reason creates foolish obstacles. We judge as man, who, according to St. Paul, does not perceive the things of God. If we have true faith we will understand even if we do not fully comprehend this wonderful promise of Christ. If we think that we must have everything explained to the satisfaction of our human reason God will leave us without truth. He a has strict right to our submission; body, soul, mind, and will. God has sufficiently proved the truth of the Doctrine He taught by the mere fact of His having uttered them.
3. When Christ said "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood..." He was only talking in the form of a Metaphor.
The metaphor "to eat one's flesh" to the Jews meant to abuse and destroy one's
character. Do you really think Jesus meant "He that reviles Me has eternal life"?
4. Leviticus 12:23 clearly shows that drinking the blood of anything is
abominable in God's sight.
My Bible does not have a 12:23 in Leviticus; I will assume you mean 7:26 which says
"Wherever you live, you must not eat blood, whether it be of bird or of beast."
Under the Old Covenant blood and fat were appointed by God as an atonement, and were therefore reserved for God. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant (Matthew 5:17-18) and established a New Covenant (or Testament, Matthew 26:28), so the prohibition against drinking blood no longer applies. However, here are some questions for Protestants: Leviticus contains many rules and regulations. How many of them do Protestants follow today? Leviticus 7:25 forbids eating fat, do Protestants refrain from eating fat? 11:7 forbids eating anything from a pig. In 11:10 oysters are forbidden. Ostrich meat is forbidden in 11:14-19. How many Protestant women follow the rules in 12:1-8? It is interesting how Protestants use Leviticus to condemn Catholics as though the rules still apply, when Protestants themselves fail to follow the rules in the same book.
5. John 6:47, 48, 53 This must be symbolic, not literal, because otherwise it
says we can't have life unless we receive or take the "host" (blessed bread).
John 6:47-50 says "I tell you most solemnly, everybody who believes has eternal life.
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the desert and they are dead; but
this is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that a man may eat it and not die."
Ordinary bread does not come down from heaven, so the bread Jesus gave us must be different.
John 6:53 says "I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you." In John 6:55 "For My flesh is real
food and my Blood is real drink."
6. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation amounts to cannibalism.
It does not. Catholic's do not believe they are eating Christ's human flesh in its natural
form. There is a change of substance and nothing else in the Host. The appearance and
qualities of the bread are not changed at all. Christ gives us His Body in a Divine and
supernatural way, not in a natural way, for His Presence is not natural but Sacramental.
7. Jesus said He would not again drink of the fruit of the VINE until the kingdom,
indicating the wine does not become his blood, but is just plain old wine.
This is taken from Matthew 26:29 "From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father". There is no indication that he meant what he just drank was plain wine. He did not say "After drinking this wine I will not drink wine...", He just stated that He would not drink wine until a later time. This is similar to someone sitting by the pool eating ice cream and saying "From now on I will not eat liver". The statement has no ties to the present situation.
8. Pope John XXIII in 1963, at the Second Vatican Council, said, "I do not accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent."
This is an interesting claim, since it contains no reference to where it came from, and
it does not list any specifics. I have been unable to find any reference to this alledged
quote, and therefore will ignore it unless/until I am provided proof that it is true.
SOURCES
Jerusalem Bible
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catholic Encyclopedia (copyright 1987)
Handbook of Christian Apologetics
Eucharist Quizzes to a Street Preacher
The Holy Bible as translated from the
Latin Vulgate
Catholic Defenders Of The Faith