The Eucharist
Catholic’s believe that the Eucharist is the true body
and blood of Christ. However over 25,000 Protestant religions believe that the
body and blood of Christ is symbolic and not literal. The Eucharist is one of
the biggest differences between Catholics and Protestants. However, looking
closely it can be seen that Christ truly is present in the Eucharist.
In Mk 14:22-24, I Cor 10:14-17 Mt 26:26-28 and Lk 22:17-20
Jesus specifically says to eat His flesh and drink His blood. And in all of
these passages He is speaking in a non-symbolic way. However, in Jn 6:51 and Mt 16:5-12 Christ
speaks about food in a symbolic way. He says in Jn 6:55 “my flesh is true food
and my blood is true drink”[1].
Because of the choice of words used in this case, to translate it in a symbolic
or figurative way would be very hard. Thus it can be understood that Christ
meant exactly what He said. The contrast between the two ways Christ spoke of
food in all of the above passages from the Bible show that there is much more
to learn than what it seems.
Protestants believe that Jesus meant that if we believe
in Him that He will feed us spiritually. And that when He said eat and drink of
My body and blood He meant, come and believe in Me and you will be nourished. This comes from John 6:35. However if that
passage is read further in, Christ once again says that His body is the bread
of life and whoever eats of His flesh shall be nourished. And even further in
that passage Christ explains exactly what He means when He calls Himself
“bread”. He says that the bread is His own literal flesh. Once this argument is
brought up, Protestants usually bring up John 6:63 which says, “It is the
spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken
to you are spirit and life.”[2]
They believe that this verse means that Christ was speaking figuratively when
He said His flesh was bread and was to be eaten. However, Christ says ‘the flesh’
not ‘my flesh’ in this passage. What He means by ‘the flesh is of no avail’ is
the unbelieving man who can believe in things that can only be found using
sense and reason, and not in Christ. If that passage was translated that ‘the
flesh’ meant Christ’s flesh Christ would be saying that His own flesh was of no
importance, which even Protestants know is not the case. Without Christ’s body
He could not have died on the cross and saved all men from sin.
Christ spoke so literally of His body being
the bread of life that some of His disciples left Him. It would not make sense for Christ to let His
disciples leave if He only meant that His body was a symbolic food, and His
blood was only a symbolic drink. Also, in Aramaic to symbolically eat flesh or
drink blood was another way of saying to persecute and assault someone. If
Christ was in fact speaking symbolically the passage “Whoever eats my flesh and
drinks my blood will have eternal life”[3]
would be translated “Whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal
life.”[4]
And to believe that Christ would say something like that is impossible.
Another
common argument brought up by Protestants is that if the Eucharist really is
the body and blood of Christ Catholics should be considered cannibals. However
at the Last Supper Christ made the sharing of His body and blood into a
sacrament. Which means the bloodiness of cannibalism was removed.
Before
the Reformation it was a common belief to believe that the Eucharist was the
body and blood of Christ. Early Church fathers wrote about the topic
frequently. St. Cyril from Jerusalem gave catechetical lectures that once
included a talk on the Eucharist. He said not to regard the bread and wine as
simply food and drink because indeed they are the body and blood of Christ.
Christ
is truly present in the Eucharist. It is not too difficult to believe that if
all of the passages mentioned above are read and considered. He states several times in the Bible that
whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood with live forever.
