Is Jesus' Body and Blood Really In the Eucharist?

Questions from teens...

I'm glad you asked this question.  This is a really important question.

First, let me address something in the question itself: No, Jesus' Body and Blood isn't IN the Eucharist...  Jesus' Body and Blood is what the bread and wine BECOME.  So His Body and Blood isn't somehow hiding inside the host, or in the wine.  The bread and the wine no longer exist - even though it still looks, feels, smells, tastes and would chemically test as bread and wine - but at the words of consecration (This IS My Body; This IS the Cup of My Blood) they BECOME the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

All of this summed up means: Jesus' Body and Blood IS the Eucharist.

But how do we know this?

Jesus Said What He Meant and Meant What He Said...

How do we know this?  I mean, if it still looks, feels, tastes, smells and even chemically tests as bread and wine, how do we know that it is really the Body and Blood of Jesus?

As Christians, the first place we look is the Scriptures.  Christ, at the Last Supper, the Thursday of the week He was crucified, picked up a piece of unleavened bread.  He blessed it and "gave thanks" (eucharistia in Greek - it's where we get the word "Eucharist" from).  Christ then said, "This is My Body."  He later did the same thing with a cup of wine saying, "This is the Cup of My Blood." Finally He told His Apostles, "Do this in memory of Me."  This is told four times in the New Testament: Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22:14-20; 1Cor 11:23-25.

Do you notice that the Gospel of John is not mentioned?  We'll get to why in a moment.

 

Let's ask some questions: When Jesus said, "Lazarus, come out!" (Jn 11:43) did His words have any effect on reality?  Was a man, who was dead, come back to life at those words?

When Jesus said, "Talitha koum!" or "Little girl, I say to you, get up!" (Mk. 5:41) did those words have any effect on reality?

How about when God, (remember Jesus is included there as He is God) said, "Let there be light!" (Gen 1:3) did those words have any effect on reality?

So why don't we think when Jesus said, "This is My Body." and "This is the Cup of My Blood." reality was changed as well?

Some will say that Jesus meant, "This represents My Body." and "This represents the Cup of My Blood."  The Greek for "is" can be used in a symbolic sense; but it can also be used in a literal sense; just like our own word "is":  "He is a giant among men."; "The sun is big."  The objection will continue that we can, and should, interpret it symbolically.

 

Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood

But wait, what about the fourth Gospel?  John's Gospel doesn't have "This is My Body / Blood" in it.  But, being the last Gospel written, John points to Passover time almost exactly a year earlier (Jn 6:4) where Christ makes some astonishing statements, namely that He was the Bread that came down from heaven; that you must eat the true Bread from Heaven to live forever; that Bread from Heaven is His Flesh that He will give for the life of the world (Jn 6:51); That we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have spiritual life within us (Jn 6:53); and He was willing to let everyone walk away if they didn't accept it.

 

Read the Gospel of John Chapter 6 carefully.  You'll note that the crowds understood "Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood" literally.  Jesus does not correct them.  He doesn't just double down... He QUADRUPAL'S down, saying again and again and again and again that we must "Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood."  In the Greek He intensifies the words too.  The first time He uses a word for eat (Jn 6:51) that can mean eat, literally or figuratively.  It's the same for our word 'eat'.  The word He uses in that verse for flesh is the same.  The next time He says it, and from there on, the words change, in Greek to trogon for eat and sarx for flesh.  What is the significance?  Neither of those two Greek words have a symbolic meaning.  Trogon means to gnaw like a lion gnaws on it's prey.  Sarx means flesh as in if you were to walk into a butcher's shop and ask for a leg of lamb... that's sarx.

 

Additionally, Jesus describes His Flesh as "true food" and His Blood as "true drink" (Jn 6:55).  The Greek word there for 'true' means "real, actual, true."  There is no symbolic meaning for it.

 

Some will object and say that Jesus tells us that a literal interpretation is silly when He says, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail."  :See," the objection continues, "Jesus says 'the flesh is of no avail.'  He's saying that this whole literal eat my flesh thing is silly!"  Another objection states that Jesus then said, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (Jn 6:63).  "His words were 'spirit'," this second objection says, "therefore it's symbolic.  See?  'Spirit' there means 'symbolic'."  Both these objections are what's called 'eisegesis' which is to have a pre-conceived idea of what the Bible means, then 'see' that idea in Scripture where it doesn't actually exist. 

 

The first objection does not have merit because it is equating two phrases that Jesus is actually differentiating between: "My Flesh" and "the flesh."  Jesus uses "the flesh" numerous times in Scripture (Mt 26:41, Mk 14:38) but He always means our human nature without the aid of the Holy Spirit.  But Jesus' Flesh is what He gave for the life of the world (Jn 6:51).  But if someone insists that the two phrases in John chapter 6 are equivalent, one should point out that this objection makes Jesus' Death on the cross pointless.

 

The second objection seems, on the surface, a bit more serious however, it too is an example of reading into Scripture what one wants to see.  The phrase "spiritual" or "spirit" no where else in Scripture means "symbolic."  If that was even a possible meaning, there would be tons of serous problems with the Christian understanding of God, who is all "spirit" (Jn 4:24, 2 Cor 3:17 etc.) or the Holy Spirit just to name two.  We would have to consider a "symbolic" interpretation of those verses as well.

 

To be fair, there is a symbolic meaning of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" found in Scripture.  However, it means, "to persecute."  So if one insists on a symbolic interpretation here, they would be saying that the soldiers who tortured Christ would have everlasting life for doing that.... something that no Christian maintains.

 

 Consistent Teaching, Consistent Witness...

 

Are there any other places in Scripture that talk about the Eucharist being Christ's Real Body and Blood?  The letters of Paul were the first things of the New Testament written.  In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians Paul states, quite plainly that when we receive the Eucharist we are participating in Christ's Body and Blood (1 Cor 10:16) He also plainly states that we must "discern the Body" of Christ when receiving the Eucharist or we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves (1 Cor 11:29). 

Paul also states that if we eat the bread or drink the cup in an unworthy manner we are guilty of "the body and blood" of Christ (1 Cor 11:27).  The wording of being guilty of "the body and blood" of something meant being guilty of murder.  If I were to shoot a picture, I would not be guilty of murder because a picture is a representation or symbol of that person.  What would I have to do to be guilty of murder?

It's pretty apparent from both the previous 2 paragraphs that Paul thought the bread and wine literally became the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

Some will object and say that this idea that the Eucharist really becomes Christ's Body and Blood was "made up" in the "middle ages" or even the "dark ages."  This too, upon analysis, cannot be true.  First, the mere psychology of trying to get someone to believe something new is difficult enough, but to get someone to believe that they now eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of their God would be near impossible.  Yet reading the writings from Christians in those various times - the time era for this objection varies - shows that this believe was universally held, or virtually universally held depending on the time frame.  That's not what we'd expect if this was a novel idea.  We also do not see anyone, inside or outside of Christianity, saying this idea was made up.

 

We also see that the earliest mention of the belief of the Real Presence, outside the Bible, is almost immediately after the New Testament was written.  Many believe that the Gospel of John was the last book written and that it was written somewhere around 90AD-100AD.  The first mention of the Real Presence takes place between 107 and 110 AD, from a student of John, Ignatius of Antioch:  "They [heretics] 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."

 

Here's the amazing thing: while this teaching was repeated, explicitly, over and over again through the centuries, NO ONE denied it until the 8th Century.  In the 8th Century, one guy denied the teaching that the Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Jesus.  He was soundly shouted down, in writing, by numerous other Christians.  He ended up recanting and repenting.  It wasn't until the 12th-13th Centuries that another denial cropped up.  It was then that the Catholic Church decided to formally define what happened at the moment of consecration.  The Church decided to make a word to describe what it has always believed: Transubstantiation.  Some moderns, errantly believe that was when the idea was first taught.

 

One last objection: some will say, "Jesus also said, 'I am a vine' and 'I am the door' but no one believes He meant literally.  Why would we think, 'I am the Bread of Life' is anything but symbolic?"  To quickly respond: no where does Jesus hold up a vine and say, "This is My Body" or hold up a door and say, "This is My Body."  But Jesus does exactly that to a piece of bread.

 

It's a Miracle!

 

We have one more way to show that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant: MIRACLES!  There are literally dozens if not hundreds of Eucharistic miracles.  These miracles have been studied by scientists - many of them not Catholic, not Christian and even atheist - and some can still be seen today. 

 

One is in Lanciano, Italy.  In the 8th Century, a priest was saying mass.  He had been struggling with the teaching of the Real Presence of the Eucharist.  At the moment of consecration, normally the 'accidents' (or appearance) of bread and wine remain, but only the substance (what something actually is) changes.  In this case, God made both the substance and the accidents change into Flesh and Blood.  The mass was stopped, the bishop was called and the Flesh and Blood were collected.

 

But that was 1200 years ago... except it still exists today.  Very briefly, it has been studied by science four times in those 1200 years.  The most recent was 1970's by two professors.  Their conclusion is the following:  the flesh is real flesh, the blood is real blood; both come from the human species; the flesh is from the left ventricle and contains part of the vagus nerve; neither contain any preservatives; they show no sign of decay or deterioration; the protein make-up is the same as fresh flesh and fresh blood; the samples could  not have been taken from a corps.

 

Another that is not yet approved is from Buenos Aires in 1996.  It was first studied by an atheist scientist / professor, and atheist lawyer and an atheist investigative reporter for Fox News.  After studying it all three are now devout Catholics.  Here is the professor's account.

 

In the end, all objections boil down to: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (Jn 6:52) or "This is a hard saying, who can endure it?" (Jn 6:65).  It is also one of the most divisive teachings of Jesus (Jn 6:66) and therefor of  His Church as well.  It forces us to make a decision either for or against.  It forces us to change. 

 

When I'm asked if I have a "personal relationship with Jesus", like Fr. Casey, I thank God I'm Catholic because there is no more personal relationship then to receive Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in the Most Holy Eucharist.

 

I hope this helps!  Have questions?  Feel free to put them in the com box.

 

Fidei Defensor

Teaching Catholics to explain the Faith with kindness and respect.