The source and summit of the Catholic faith is the Eucharist because it nourishes and gives the Church life (CCC 1324). Naturally then, it is a lightning rod for critics of the Church to claim that the doctrine is unbiblical and heretical. In this essay I will refute the claim that the Bible does not provide evidence of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This claim is advanced by an anti-catholic website in an essay written by Jim Tetlow entitled, "The Eucharist: A Biblical Review." For biblical and historical evidence for the real presence, follow the link below to an article at Catholic Answer’s website.

The main problem with this objection is that Mr. Tetlow treats the entire Bread of Life Discourse as one section with one meaning, but that is not the case. Verses 1-47 are symbolic in nature (Sungenis 170). Jesus is trying to impart the spiritual significance of believing in him through earthly metaphors. Before anyone can partake of him physically one must believe in him spiritually. Verses 48-58 become the literal section that commands the eating of Jesus’ flesh and drinking of blood. Why is this important? It is important because John is trying to show his readers that the Eucharist is not some magical food, or "magic potion" that for whoever eats it has eternal life just because they are eating it. Rather, he is showing them that belief is important so that the physical reality is made fully known and fully affects them. However, Mr. Tetlow would have us belief that it is merely a spiritual pick-me up. Moreover, there are still problems with the exegesis of this passage.

First, verse 35 does not have an analogous comparison to verse 51 where Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In 35 Jesus says that whoever believes in him shall never thirst, which would make us think of water. If that was the case then Jesus could have continued to refer to himself as a source of living water like in John 7:37. However, he doesn’t and he instead tells us to drink His blood. Why?

Second, it is important to note that the symbolic and literal sections are further separated by word choice. Not until verses 51-58, the literal section, does John use the words eat, drink, flesh, or blood. That being said, verse 40 can be established as belonging to the spiritual section and affirming that belief in Jesus does lead to eternal life, but it begs the question "what kind of belief?" which is answered in the literal section.

Mr. Tetlow has committed the fallacy of the false dilemma, namely that Jesus was either speaking figuratively or advocating cannibalism, a pagan practice forbidden by God. There is a third option, that Jesus was fulfilling the scriptures in a divine way through a sacrament. Tetlow forgets that Jesus had previously exercised his sovereignty over God’s law in the other chapters; for instance, when Jesus healed and had his disciples pick grain on the Sabbath and violate God’s Law (Luke 6:1-11). He also was not advocating cannibalism as explained by Fathers Rumbel and Carty in their Radio Replies:

"Christ is not present in the Eucharist under a form in which cannibalism could be possible. His body is really and substantially present, but not in a natural way. It is an entirely supernatural mode of presence which one may not believe, but which at least excludes all notions of cannibalism. It is the same objection as that which came to the minds of his hearers when Christ told them of His intention in regard to the future Eucharist. Christ said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" And they forsook Christ, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" They picture a cannibalistic eating of raw human flesh and the drinking of human blood. Christ did not intend to be received in such a way, but he did intend to leave the substance of His bodily being under the qualities of bread, for the purpose of uniting us as really to His humanity as His humanity is united to His divinity, the union in our case being sacramental and in His case personal or hypostatic."

Finally, Jesus must have been speaking literally because for him to speak figuratively wouldn’t make any sense. As I noted in my teaching, to eat ones flesh and drink one’s blood was an invitation for degradation, or a harm of a very serious kind. Try as hard as he and other Protestants might, there is no scriptural warrant that "to eat one’s flesh and drink one’s blood," means simply to come and believe in Jesus. This manner of Biblical exegesis is of poor quality because Mr. Tetlow has committed the fallacy of "begging the question" or he has assumed as true what he is trying to prove.

Critics rest their case for symbolism on verse 35, which was discussed earlier, and verse 63. The problem with using this verse is that the interpreters who argue from symbolism are taking spirit to mean, immaterial. That only immaterial things, spiritual things, give life, while the flesh, or matter is of no avail. Frankly, this is nothing more than Gnosticism, a second century heresy. Sadly, this a common mindset of Protestants, and which is why the sacraments for them are only "reminders" and have no spiritual power to do anything. When John uses spirit he refers to the spirit of wisdom, or the supernatural. Flesh by contrast is merely the earthly reasoning capacity of the Jews. Jesus is saying that human reasoning can only go so far in discerning God’s will, and that supernatural revelation gives it in its entirety. So when he says "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." He is saying, "You can believe me, it is coming straight from the horse’s mouth, I didn’t reason my way here like the Pharisees."

In addition, it makes Jesus seem very inconsistent, as Karl Keating writes:

"Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you'll find it's a waste of time" — is that how He was to be understood? And were the disciples to understand the line "the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life" as nothing but a circumlocution, and a fairly clumsy one at that, for "symbolic"? No one can come up with interpretations like these unless he first holds to the fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find some rationale, no matter how tortuous, for discarding the Catholic interpretation". (Keating 242)

Mr. Tetlow also tries to cement his case by noting that Peter’s response makes no explicit mention of the Eucharist:

"Jesus said to the twelve apostles - "Do you also want to go away?" (verse 67). Peter's response is profound. His reply to Jesus is recorded in verse 68 - "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Amazing! Peter did not say we have come to believe that we must eat your flesh to live. He said that we know You are the Christ, and we have come to believe in You as the Christ."

Mr. Tetlow misses the point that this was all Jesus had revealed to his disciples because the Last Supper had not yet occurred. Also, Peter’s expression, "you have the words of eternal life" is an implicit acceptance of the truth of Jesus’ words just spoken to them. The apostles were expectedly confused by the command, but they knew Jesus was the Christ so they gave him the benefit of the doubt that what he meant would be revealed in good time.

In the Gospel of John Jesus reveals his true nature through seven "I Am" statements:

• John 6:35 - I am the bread of life
• John 8:12 - I am the light of the world
• John 10:9 - I am the door
• John 10:11 - I am the good shepherd
• John 11:25 - I am the resurrection and the life
• John 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life
• John 15:5 - I am the vine

Mr. Tetlow reasons that because Jesus says He is "the bread of life" and we accept that literally, then when he says "I am the door" or "I am the vine" we must accept that to be literal as well. It is a fallacy of biblical interpretation that just because two passages are constructed similarly, that means that they must both be interpreted the same way. Catholic theologians admit that part of "I am the bread of life" is spiritual and metaphorical in that if our souls are hungering for God, Jesus feeds us like bread. However, in John 6 the symbolic sense undergoes a dramatic shift and the bread of life theme is continued in a literal sense in verses 51-58. This does not occur with the other "I am" statements. The other statements are also short and concise. Jesus does not continually command people to walk through him as "the gate" nor does anyone balk at him saying that as they do in John 6 when Jesus says he is the bread that comes down from heaven.

Mr. Tetlow misses what meaning was intended in the original Greek translation of the phrase "remembrance." This phrase is generally derived from Luke 22:19:

"Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

Now in Greek there are many words that can be used to say "remember" like "I remembered a friends phone number" or "I remembered an errand I have to run." An example of this Greek form is anamimnesko, which means to generally remember something (Sungenis 124). An example is the following passage from Numbers:

"When in your own land you go to war against an enemy that is attacking you, you shall sound the alarm on the trumpets, and the LORD, your God, will remember (anamimnesko) you and save you from your foes" (Numbers 10:9).

But the word Luke uses is a different form of remembering. The phrase "in memory of me" is translated from anamnesis, which is not just a remembrance of an event, or person. It is instead, a "remembrance brought about by the act of sacrifice" (Sungenis 125). An example is Leviticus 24:7-8:

"On each pile put some pure frankincense, which shall serve as a memorial (anamnesis) to the LORD, a token offering for the bread. Regularly on each Sabbath day this bread shall be set out afresh before the LORD, offered on the part of the Israelites by an everlasting agreement."

In this passage the Israelite priest and his sons are called to offer a memorial of bread by the fire of incense to the Lord. The bread is set out each Sabbath to commemorate the lasting covenant they have with God and the Israelites are expected to uphold the bread as one of their most holy sacrifices. The parallel between this and the sacrifice of the mass is uncanny, where Holy bread is offered on the new Sabbath to commemorate the new everlasting covenant. In addition, the structure of the passage, even in English lends itself to a sacrificial remembrance. How is this accomplished? First, one must take a look at the grammatical structure of the passage.

"This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19).

What does "do this" refer to? The second clause of the statement has no subject, "do this in memory of me." Therefore, it must be referring to an action in the first clause. In the first clause Jesus only mentions one action to copy in "do this" when he says, "this is my body, which will be given for you." So Jesus is saying, "Do the giving of my body in remembrance of me." Or "offer up a sacrifice of myself in remembrance of the sacrifice I have made." This is the whole meaning inscribed in anamnesis. It is important to remember that Luke had many other words to choose from that meant simply "remember," but he chose this one to underscore the importance of the sacrifice in the Eucharist and the memorial brought about by it.

Mr. Tetlow contends that in the many instances of the phrase "breaking of the bread" the Apostles were merely participating in a memorial feast, and not a sacrifice. First, the apostles were devout Jews, and I have shown earlier that they would have understood the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, as well as the sacrificial nature of the relationship between the Jewish people and God’s Grace and mercy toward sin. Second, there is an implicit reference to the importance of the Eucharist in the verse Mr. Tetlow mentions. He says:

"Even on Sunday, which is the day that the Lord rose, they referred to Communion as mere bread. In a key verse in the Book of Acts, we read: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…" (Acts 20:7)."

If Mr. Tetlow continued on with the story, which is very humorous and unexpected, he would see the importance of the breaking of the bread:

"On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight. There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were gathered, and a young man named Eutychus who was sitting on the window sill was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. Once overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and when he was picked up, he was dead. Paul went down, threw himself upon him, and said as he embraced him, "Don't be alarmed; there is life in him." Then he returned upstairs, broke the bread, and ate; after a long conversation that lasted until daybreak, he departed. And they took the boy away alive and were immeasurably comforted" (Acts 20:7-12).

So let us get this story straight. On Sunday Paul and the others gathered in a house in Troas. Note that Luke mentions many lamps were lit. This is important because Paul and the others were engaging in illegal activities that they would want to keep secret, not announce to the whole world they were up and freely talking about it. Then Eutychus gets bored listening to Paul drone on and on, past midnight, and falls out of a window 30 feet high and dies. Bet you didn’t see that coming! But it gets better; Paul says the boy will be fine, and then goes to celebrate the Eucharist in verse 11. Paul is giving an implicit correlation, as is Luke, of how there is "life within him." Then after the breaking of the bread, which even though he was totally lacking sleep, Paul made sure to partake in, the boy is taken away alive. This argument from silence that Mr. Tetlow makes does not overwhelm the vast amount of testimony from other sources (Gospels, letters, church fathers) as well as the implicit reference in the preceding verse.

This objection is moot, because Paul and the disciples are addressing the pagan Greeks at Aeropagus who do not know God, or more specifically, God as revealed to Jews and then Christians. This is where Paul notes the memorable altar to "the unknown God"

"Then Paul stood up at the Aeropagus and said: "You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything" (Acts 17:22-25).

Paul is admonishing idol worship, and the idea that God is present in the artifacts that men build. In the preceding verse to this discourse Paul was "exasperated at the sight of the city full of idols" (Acts 17:16). This is further confirmed by verse 29 where Paul says:

"Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination."

Next Mr. Tetlow raises a similar objection to the early church telling believers to abstain from blood. He infers that since the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood then we should do the same. This is just a red herring and needless objection as in the preceding verses. This command was issued with the sole purpose of not causing confusion in the early church of Christians adopting pagan practices.

Outside of the Gospel of John, this passage in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians provides excellent evidence towards the doctrine of the real presence. The positive evidence towards it is available through the link to Catholic Answers at the beginning of this article. That should be sufficient to answer the objection that only mental remembrance is necessary. Mental remembrance would not account for the verses of chapter 11 that tell the Corinthians to "examine themselves" or else they will "eat and drink judgment upon themselves" (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). Finally, the most curious verse relating to this passage is verse 30, which recounts that many of the Corinthians are sick and DYING because of their lack of discernment. Now in the entire New Testament there is no record of a death judgment on such a mass scale for not recognizing the importance of a symbol. Even the man in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 who had sexual relations with his father’s wife was only excommunicated, not killed.