A distinctively Catholic teaching and practice involves the centrality of the Eucharist, one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. The word “Eucharist” is from a Greek word meaning “thanksgiving” and was instituted by Jesus Christ at The Last Supper where he “gave thanks” in what was the very first Communion, or The Lord’s Supper as it is sometimes called. But beyond mere symbolism, Catholics teach that the bread and the wine at the Catholic Mass actually become the body and the blood of Jesus Christ in a mystery called transubstantiation—a unique word designed to describe this singular miracle and a topic for another time. As a fulfillment of the command as well as a reflection of the Passover Lamb of the Old Testament, Catholics are required to consume the transubstantiated bread and the wine, thereby literally consuming the body and blood of Jesus.
Protestants teaching varies on the Eucharist. Anglicans and Lutherans have some form of it but many churches, particularly Bible churches, pay little attention to the Eucharist and may celebrate a memorial of the Lord’s Supper periodically. According to Protestant thought, when Jesus describes the elements (or the species) of communion as His “body” and “blood” he only means it symbolically,
Catholics, on the other hand, always have communion at Mass, every day reflecting the “our daily bread” of the Lord’s Prayer. It is central to Christian gathering and worship—and not optional. The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Himself and is treated with the utmost reverence. When entering a Catholic Church, if the “most blessed sacrament” is present in the tabernacle, Catholics will genuflect in front of it. Eucharistic Adoration is a time set aside for Catholics to worship Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. On the Sunday of Corpus Christi, the Eucharist is paraded through the streets in Europe and Catholics will kneel or prostrate as it passes—it is God Incarnate. Before receiving communion, Catholics must first confess any mortal sins otherwise that person will heap condemnation on themselves simply by partaking. Anyone who intentionally desecrates the bread of communion is automatically excommunicated—it is that serious. Curiously, Satanist use the communion bread stolen from the Catholic Mass to profane Christ in their Black rituals. The consumption of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was such a major component of Christian identity, the Romans persecuted Christians of the Early Church with the capital charge of cannibalism.
Analysis
A key scripture regarding the Eucharist is John 6 in which Jesus teaches about “His Body”, and “His Blood” being consumed—a portion of scripture I’d read a hundred times and glossed over with casual perplexity:
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
Rather than iron out things to everyone’s satisfaction, Jesus just makes things worse:
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. 64But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him. 67Jesus said to the Twelve, “Will you also go away?” 68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
Some Christians would say Jesus is speaking figuratively. But he never says so as in some parables or other teachings; in fact, here he says “Truly, truly…” which was the cultural equivalent of “seriously” or “listen up” or “I kid you not”.
But if it was just symbolic, then why would it be a hard teaching as the grumbling disciples say? These were people already poised to accept Jesus’ words, especially after being miraculously provisioned (this was the five thousand fed with 5 loaves and 2 fishes the day before). But the reaction of the crowd clearly indicated that Jesus was driving home a concept that was, no pun intended, difficult for them to swallow. Indeed, if Jesus was simply suggesting to “be so much like him”, “follow him closely” and so forth, would it not have been a moot point? As designated disciples, these folks were already following him and were far along in their pursuit.
NOTA BENE: Instead, Jesus let these disciples that were following Him, leave. This was a hard teaching because it is a hard teaching, even today, especially for non-Catholics. And unless one eats this flesh and drinks this blood according to this passage, they will not have life in Him—the same life mentioned in only one other part of the Bible (Gen 3:22).
When I explain the scriptural basis for Christ’s institutionalization of the Eucharist and the sacramental life in general, non-Catholic Christians react the same way I once did to the passages in John 6. But Jesus’ words on this matter can never be seen as a hard teaching from even a secular perspective if only interpreted metaphorically. After all, what’s so hard and difficult about following a great teacher as they claim this teaching implies? I suppose Buddha, Mohammed and Karl Marx could have made the same statements without raising offense and causing their disciples to leave if it was only meant symbolically. But even today, the teaching is as hard as it was when first presented. And if the Catholic Church is right, and alone has apostolic pedigree to transubstantiate bread and wine, and the Eucharist is the means for eternal life outside of which there is no life in Christ—non-Catholic Christians are in a very precarious situation.
In addition, the Eucharist is the sign of the new and everlasting covenant as described in the Last Supper. Would such a sign be merely symbolic or profound and meaningful? Unlike a number of Catholic teaching and doctrines, this one is a total game changer. One may never pray to Mary and the saints, but the Eucharist cannot be safely ignored.