The Challenge: Dear Ron, I read only two of your articles, but they were sufficient for me to understand that you don’t like the Catholic Church. In this email I’m to write something on Our Lord’s REAL presence in the Blessed Eucharist.

My Response: Sir, I make no secret of my intense dislike for the Catholic Church. To understand my position, it is necessary to know what I mean by ‘the Catholic Church.’ When I refer to the Catholic Church, I do so in the same sense her popes and bishops do—as an incorporeal entity. We know that the Catholic Church exists, for we can see her buildings, read her documents and even speak with her priests and religious. We know that the Catholic Church exists for many wrongs have been done in her name. Yet, when one accuses this phantom entity of wrongdoing, we are told “the Church can do no wrong, for she is the Bride of Christ and therefore holy and without blemish.” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2nd Ed., © 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.1426)

And so we have a strange situation. The Magisterium teaches that the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and is “holy and without blemish;” yet crusades, pogroms and other monstrous things have been done in her name and by her priests, bishops and religious. When a pope, such as Innocent III, commands a war of annihilation against religious dissenters and offers rewards in this life and absolution in the next, are we to believe that he is not speaking for the Catholic Church?

In papal and episcopal ‘apologies,’ we are assured that those who acted in the name of the Catholic Church were misguided and were in reality acting on their own responsibility. We are assured that the Catholic Church was innocent of any wrongdoing in the matter for which the pseudo apology was tendered and is incapable of wrongdoing.

771. "'The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.'[LG 8 # 1.] The Church is at the same time:

- a 'society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;
- the visible society and the spiritual community;
- the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches.'[LG 8.]

These dimensions together constitute 'one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element':[LG 8.]

The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.[SC 2, Cf. Heb 13:14 .]

O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and Bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven's beauty has adorned her.[St. Bernard of Clairvaux, In Cant. Sermo 27:14 PL 183:920D.]"—Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2nd Ed., © 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc., p. 203 [My emphasis]

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church, as revised, was compiled by an Interdicasterial Commission of twelve cardinals and bishops, chaired by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the current name of the body better known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition.). Pope John Paul II wrote, in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum by which the new Catechism was promulgated: “I declare [this Catechism] to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” By acknowledging these things, then one surely must also acknowledge that paragraph 771, quote above, must teach truth concerning the nature and composition of the Catholic Church. With these Catholic truths in mind, I declare that the Catholic Church is more than just an incorporeal entity; that she is comprised of and manifested by both human and spiritual parts. Furthermore, I submit that in that her actions in this world are controlled and conducted by members of the ‘hierarchical organs’ of the Church, the Catholic Church indeed is capable—and guilty—of wrongdoing. Attempts to escape culpability for wrongful deeds done in her name by laying the blame on individual members rather than the corporate body of the Church is shameful deception. And now to your arguments concerning the alleged ‘Real Presence’ in the ‘Blessed Eucharist.’ You wrote:

When Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist he Didn’t "say this is a symbol of my body" but said "this IS my body"

Before responding further to this argument, I wish to make it clear that you have not established that Christ “instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist.” Please know that Bible-believing evangelical Christians do not consider what we know as The Lord’s Supper to be a sacrament. We could agree, I suppose, that it is an ordinance established by Christ.

Biblical Jesus was a Jew among Jews. It seems quite unlikely that He would not have used patterns of speech and other mannerisms common to the milieu in which He conducted His public ministry. A metaphorical expression, such as “This is My body,” would have been a typical Hebraism. No eucharistic miracle of transubstantiation was implied, nor could the disciples have missed the symbolic intent of his statement. After all, His actual body—as yet unbroken—was standing before them. In saying, as He did in Luke 22:19, “do this,” He established the observance as an ordinance for worship. The Jewish observance of Passover had looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ. In saying, “in remembrance of Me,” Jesus transformed the Passover seder into an altogether different ceremony; one that looks back in remembrance of His atoning death.

Many conservative Bible scholars believe that Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth before any of the Gospels were penned. If this indeed were so, then the apostle’s instruction concerning the bread and the wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) is the earliest biblical record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It is particularly noteworthy that, under these conditions, Paul would have received his instruction directly from the Lord and not by way of having read the writing of any of the other apostles. (Galatians 1:10-12)

And now to your argument: Are you here suggesting that, in order for a statement to be considered symbolic it must be clearly identified and defined as symbolic? Were that the case, then I can but wonder why the common image of the Catholic Christ is that of a male human being—though rarely, in my observations, as a Semitic male human being.

Did not the biblical Jesus of Nazareth also say “I am the true vine?” (John 15:1). In that in the cited verse, He did not say “I am symbolically the true vine,” are we not to believe—using your argument for Matthew 26:26—that Catholic imagery should also present the Catholic Jesus as a vine?

In John 10:9, biblical Jesus said, “I am the door…” He is not recorded as having said, “I am symbolically the door…” Therefore, again applying your rationale, I am surprised that I have never seen Catholic Jesus presented as a door in any Catholic iconography.

Now, in John 10:11, biblical Jesus is recorded as having said, “I am the good shepherd…” I acknowledge that I have seen the Christ presented as a shepherd, though it should be clear to the reader that in this passage He also was speaking figuratively. Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity. He has many more useful things to do than look after a flock of sheep or assume the forms of such things as a vine, a door, a scrap of bread or a glass of watered wine. What useful things, you might ask. Well, for starters, He is at the right hand of the Father making intercession for the saints--all those who are truly saved (Romans 8:34). He is head over all things to the church, which is His body. (Ephesians 1:20-23). He is Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8). He is in Heaven, ruling over angels and powers and authorities (1 Peter 3:22).

The Scriptures inform that resurrected Jesus is in Heaven, seated at the right hand of God (e.g., Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22). They do not tell us that He also resides in the form of a tasteless wafer in thousands of ciboria in thousands of Catholic Churches. More on that later.

In the sentence 'this is my body;' the subject 'this', i.e. the bread which Christ held in His hands, is identified with the predicate 'my body' (this is referring to the Greek in which St. Mark wrote) (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture by diverse authors, published in 1953 by Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd.)

I find nothing to disagree with in this citation, for the unidentified commentator’s words are nothing more than a brief examination of the grammar used in the verse in question. It fails to address whether the Lord’s use of the term was intended to be understood literally or metaphorically.

In rebuttal to your unattributed citation, I offer the thoughts of renowned Bible scholar. educator and authority on Koine Greek, Dr. A. T. Robertson, who had this to say about the “This is My body” usage in Matthew 26:26: lockquote>

26:26 And blessed and brake it (eulogˆsas eklasen). Special "Grace" in the middle of the passover meal, "as they were eating," for the institution of the Supper. Jesus broke one of the passover wafers or cakes that each might have a piece, not as a symbol of the breaking of his body as the Textus Receptus has it in 1Cor. 11:24. The correct text there has only to huper hum“n without kl“menon. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not "broken" (John 19:33) as John expressly states. This is my body (touto estin to s“ma mou). The bread as a symbol _represents_ the body of Jesus offered for us, "a beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of his death" (Bruce). But some have made it "run into fetish worship" (Bruce). Jesus, of course, does not mean that the bread actually becomes his body and is to be worshipped. The purpose of the memorial is to remind us of his death for our sins. –A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. I, the Gospel According To Matthew, © 1930 Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, p. 209

In his Bible Commentary, evangelical Bible scholar Sydney Cleveland drew upon the writings of another recognized Bible exegete and authority on Koine, F. F. Bruce, in his examination of Matthew 26:26:

WHILE THEY WERE EATING = The meal being eaten was the Passover meal. At this point Jesus broke away from the traditional Passover meal and instituted the Lord's Supper.

BREAD = Breaking and distributing bread was a regular part of the Passover celebration of Judaism. Unleavened bread represented "the bread of affliction, because you left Egypt in haste" (Deuteronomy 16:3, 4). The Passover celebration itself was a memorial of the Jew's departure from Egypt. However, in the Lord's Supper, the bread represents Christ's body. Thus the symbolism is far different from that of the Passover. The Lord's Supper of Christianity is a memorial of the Lord's death (1 Corinthians 11:26), and thus has nothing to do with the Passover Supper of Judaism. The Greek term "artos" (Strongs #G740) means "bread, a loaf of bread." It is the normal word for leavened/risen bread and is used when speaking of the leavened shewbread ("Bread of the Presence") in the Holy Place of the temple (see Matthew 12:4; Hebrews 9:2; and the LXX Greek version of Leviticus 24:7-9). Thus, in the Old Testament, leavened bread routinely represented the divine presence of our sinless God. In fact, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (which means "house of bread") and said "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35, 48). At the Lord's supper Christ avoided using the Greek word for "unleavened bread" ("azumos," [Strongs #G106), therefore it may be reasoned that any bread, including risen bread, is permissible at the Lord's Supper for both leavened and unleavened bread are used in Scripture to represent the presence of deity. Never is there a statement in the Bible requiring unleavened bread at the Lord's Supper.

"After the (Passover) meal a half 'matzah' (unleavened bread) that had been hidden away was brought out and eaten. This will have been the bread of Matthew 26:26." -- The International Bible Commentary, edited by F. F. Bruce, page 1148.

THIS IS MY BODY = When Jesus said these words He caused a tremendous controversy in Christianity. The central point around which this controversy revolves concerns the meaning of the word "is." Through the doctrine of Transubstantiation, Roman Catholics believe the bread of the Lord's Supper literally becomes the physical body of Christ. However, when Jesus said "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35, 48) He was not saying He was made of bread. Since Jesus' body was physically present at the Lord's Supper, we must believe that Jesus used the word "is" to mean "represents, symbolizes, or signifies."

"Earlier Jesus would have said, as He showed the unleavened bread, 'This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt'; His disciples must have understood 'this is my body' in the same (symbolic) way." -- The International Bible Commentary, edited by F. F. Bruce, page 1148.--Quoted from the Cleveland Bible Commentary, by Sydney M. Cleveland.

The Catholic apologist continued:

If the Eucharist isn`t the True Christ then why did St. Paul write in his letter to the Corinthians " Anyone who eats this bread or drinks the chalice of the Lord, not worthily , is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor.11:27) in this sentence St. Paul is very clear, if it was a mere piece of bread and some wine why would some one be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord?

Perhaps the apostle was admonishing the church at Corinth. Perhaps he was reminding them of the solemn significance of the Lord’s Supper, and that to come to the Lord’s Table while still clinging to one’s sins not only dishonors the ceremony; it also would dishonor His body and blood, treating lightly Christ’s gracious sacrifice for us. In the next verse, Paul tells his readers to examine themselves, to set their sins before the Lord, and then partake of the Supper, thereby not mocking Christ’s sacrifice for sin by holding on to sin.

It seems to me, Sir, that you may be approaching the Scriptures as do so many others in the Catholic Church; guided by your presuppositions and interpreting the holy writings as though they were penned in the 21st century. When reading the Scriptures, it is vital to seek to receive them as those to whom originally delivered received them. This requires some familiarity with the cultures and peoples of biblical period. To make a rather weak analogy, assigning contemporary meanings to the Scriptures is rather like trying to make sense of Shakespeare translated into third grade English. I believe you would find it helpful to obtain and study a copy of Gordon Fee’s excellent little book on hermeneutics, How To Read The Bible For All It’s Worth.

Another quote that I really like was pronounced by St. Ambrose, who was Bishop if Milan, and he was the one who baptized St. Augustine: "Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature" (Catechism of the Catholic Church parag. 1375)

I cannot imagine why you considered it necessary to mention that Ambrose was the one who baptized Augustine. That he was a bishop of Milan is of some minor interest, I suppose, but Ambrose is a Doctor of the Church and was a leading theologian. If you must make some comment on his life, would it not be better to allude to his qualifications as a theologian and commentator than to mention a single act of his that had absolutely no bearing on the issue being examined?

I should also like to point out that calling up the writings of Church Fathers in support of a theological position can be tricky business. There is no evidence that I am aware of to support a claim that the Church Fathers wrote oracles of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They were, as are Bible scholars today, simply men who had devoted much of their lives to studying and proclaiming the Scriptures. When reading their thoughts, one must exercise discernment, just as is the case when reading the thoughts of contemporary Bible commentators. One must be especially careful when quoting proof texts from the writings of the Church Fathers, for it is not at all unusual to discover that the same Church Father may have at some other point in his life espoused another position on the same issue, perhaps even diametrically opposed to the quoted statement. Finally, quoting a Church Father’s position on an issue is easily matched by the opposition, who need only to quote an opposition position by some other Church Father.

Tertullian, widely considered to have been the founder of the Latin Church, in his examination of John 6 makes it clear that Jesus spoke in spiritual terms when He referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood:

[Christ] says, it is true, that “the flesh profiteth nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which cometh down from heaven,” impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.—Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, Latin Christianity: It’s Founder, Tertullian, On The Resurrection of the Flesh , Chap. 37, Books for the Ages, Ages Software, v. 2.0 © 1997, pp. 10234-35 (My emphasis)

The Romish champion pressed his case:

The Catholic Church has been faithful to Christ's commandment since its very beginning. we find St. Ignatius of Antioch who died in the year 170 and who was a disciple of the Apostle John wrote this about those who didn’t believe in the real presence "They have abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of our Lord"

I must stand in disagreement with your statement on the grounds that the Catholic Church has not been faithful to Christ’s commandment but to a self-serving interpretation of that commandment that supports the necessity of a sacramental priesthood.

Unfortunately, you neglected to cite the source of the Ignatius quotation you used, so I was not able to read it in context. Thus, it lends small strength to your position.

Interesting that you should call up a quotation from Ignatius of Antioch in support of your position on the Real Presence. Interesting because, according to Catholic hagiographies, Ignatius expressed a dying wish that he might become “agreeable bread to the Lord;” a clearly metaphorical use of the word ‘bread.’ According to one hagiography,

He arrived in Rome just as the public spectacles in the amphitheater were drawing to a close. The faithful of the city came out to meet him. He was at once hurried to the amphitheater, where two fierce lions immediately devoured him. He ended his saintly life by a glorious death, exclaiming, "May I become agreeable bread to the Lord…"--Catholic Online Saints, St. Ignatius of Antioch, ©1999-2003 Catholic Online

The guy had other arrows in his quiver:

St. Ephrem who died in the year 373 said "but if anyone despise it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body" (see book "Eucharistic Miracles" by Joan Carol Cruz, published by Tan in 1987)

Once again, you have failed to identify the source of the statement you quoted; thus denying me the possibility of reading it in context. Talk about your obscure sources; little is known of Ephrem, other than that he left behind a multitude of hymns.

Ephrem (or Eprhaim) the Syrian left us hundreds of hymns and poems on the faith that inflamed and inspired the whole Church, but few facts about his own inspiring life. Most historians infer from the lines quoted above that Ephrem was born into a Christian family -- although not baptized until an adult (the trial or furnace), which was common at the time. Other than that little is known about his birth and youth although many guess he was born in the early fourth century in Mesopotamia, possibly in Nisibis where he spent most of his adult life.--Catholic Online Saints, St. Ephrem, ©1999-2003 Catholic Online

From what little I have read of Ephrem’s work, he certainly was given to using metaphors and other figures of speech in his writing.

“There grew a vine-shoot on my tongue: and increased and reached unto heaven, And it yielded fruit without measure: leaves likewise without number. It spread, it stretched wide, it bore fruit: all creation drew near, And the more they were that gathered: the more its clusters abounded. These clusters were the Homilies; and these leaves the Hymns. God was the giver of them: glory to Him for His grace! For He gave to me of His good pleasure: from the storehouse of His treasures."—Catholic Online Saints, St. Ephrem, Op. cit.

The defender of Catholicism explained the importance of the Real Presence to RCC doctrine:

you have to believe thet Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist to understand why " the other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are bound up with, and directed to, the Blessed Eucharist" (Code of Cannon Law Can.897)

Indeed, it is surely necessary to believe that Christ is really present in the Eucharistic species to understand the other fantasies that are centered on the fantasy of the Real Presence.

Our Catholic life evolves around Christ, He is the one who gives us life, He is the only One i live for, He is My only desire. He kept His promise to us when He told us that He will be always with us, he left us Himself in the Blessed Sacrament.

This is, I imagine, a statement of your own theological position, expressed in rather saccharine terminology. I don’t care to deal with this, for it clearly is but a syrupy parroting of something you once read, perhaps in the Dialogue of Catherine of Siena. Your apparently self-descriptive statements are improvable and have no bearing whatsoever on the issue under discussion, the Real Presence.

In His last Encyclical our most Holy Father Pope John Paul II Ecclesia de Eucharistia (parag2) tells us: ... the Eucharistic sacrifice is “the source and >summit of the Christian life”.1 “For the most holy Eucharist contains the Church's entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself, our passover and living bread. Through his own flesh, now made living and life-giving by the Holy Spirit, he offers life to men”.2 Consequently the gaze of the Church is constantly turned to her Lord, present in the Sacrament of the Altar, in which she discovers the full manifestation of his boundless love.

Did you actually read Ecclesia de Eucharistia? Or did you lift your quoted words from another secondary source? I read it again at the Vatican web site, which surely must offer a trustworthy translation. I find the words you quoted to be in the second part of Paragraph 1 of that document. I quote the full paragraph to make a point:

The Second Vatican Council rightly proclaimed that the Eucharistic sacrifice is “the source and summit of the Christian life”.1 “For the most holy Eucharist contains the Church's entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself, our passover and living bread. Through his own flesh, now made living and life-giving by the Holy Spirit, he offers life to men”.2 Consequently the gaze of the Church is constantly turned to her Lord, present in the Sacrament of the Altar, in which she discovers the full manifestation of his boundless love.

The footnotes to this paragraph are:

[1]Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 11.

[2]Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Presbyterorum Ordinis, 5.

I quoted the subparagraph in full in order to show the sources the Pope called upon in making the statements you quoted. Are you aware that Vatican II is well known to have produced not a single dogmatic definition? In other words, neither Lumen Gentium nor Presbyterorum Ordinis carry the imagined authority of infallibility. They are, in plain terms, nothing more than the opinions of the men who wrote them. Thus, John Paul II in quoting from them to make his case, cannot be shown to have placed his stamp of alleged infallibility upon the declarations cited.

I have tried to explain why the Holy Eucharist is so important to us. It is true that I didn't read all the articles on your site and I don’t know why you left the Church. I hope and pray for you that you may find your way back into the arms of a loving mother which is Christ’s bride and only Church

For your information, I left the Catholic Church because she failed to nourish me spiritually. She was like an octopus holding me with soul crushing tentacles and stifling my heart-felt desire to draw near to the Lord. When I finally severed the bloodless and shriveled umbilical that bound me to Mother Church, I had learned to hate religion, religious people and the very idea of God.

I have no desire to return to the suffocating bosom of Mother Church, as if that were even possible. Please know that I am under more than 100 anathemas and more than a few latae sentencia excommunications because of my beliefs. Many of those curses are reserved to the pope; and know I would willingly die before ever again submitting my mind and will to the Catholic pope.

I close with these words from Augustine:

But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor. Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbor... —Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, St. Augustine: The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.10.14, How We Are To Discern Whether a Phrase Is Figurative, Books for the Ages, Ages Software, v. 2.0 © 1997, p. 1172

‘If the sentence…seems to enjoin a crime or vice…it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’—Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, St. Augustine: The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.24, Rule For Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions, Books for the Ages, Ages Software, v. 2.0 © 1997, p. 1177