"In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.' 'This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.'" - Catechism Section 1374"It is by the conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in the sacrament." - Catechism Section 1375
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.'" - Catechism Section 1376
These three quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church indisputably and unequivocally state the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, that is, that the substance of the Eucharist is literally and physically the body and blood of Jesus.
Now, this concept may be difficult to understand because the bread and wine do not seem to become literal flesh and blood. This is where the concepts of "accidents" and "substance" come into play. St. Thomas Aquinas explained the Eucharist using Aristotle's philosophy (although transubstantiation is not dependent upon Aristotle), which says that everything has accidents and substance. The accidents are the physical properties, what is perceived by our senses, such as color, texture, taste, size, and smell. The substance is what the matter actually IS, such as flesh, blood, wine, and bread. So, with the Eucharist, while the accidents, what we perceive with our senses, stay the same, the substance, what the matter actually IS, changes. I think that the easiest way to understand this miraculous change is to give an example of the opposite: the accidents changing but the substance staying the same. When the temperature of water goes down to 32� F, the physical properties change (from liquid to solid), but the substance stays the same (it's still H2O). A similar thing happens when the temperature of water reaches 212� F. The accidents change (from liquid to gas), but the substance stays the same (it's still H2O). From this example, we can see the difference between accidents and substance, which helps to elucidate the miracle of transubstantiation.
"While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.'" - Matthew 26:26-29
Jesus' words at the Last Supper provide very direct support for transubstantiation simply because He said "This IS my body�This IS my blood" rather than "This REPRESENTS my body�This REPRESENTS my blood." Now, if Jesus was merely speaking symbolically, why did he say that the bread and wine WAS His body and blood rather than REPRESENTED His body and blood? Aside from the fact that Jesus could just have easily have said, "This represents my body," there is no logical reason for Jesus to have been speaking symbolically.
If Jesus was only instituting a memorial meal by which we would remember His death (or possibly some other event in His life; it doesn't really matter), then why would He have us eat the bread that represents His body and drink the wine that represents His blood? Bread and wine are not (and were not among the ancient Jews) symbols of flesh and blood. Symbols are logically connected to what they symbolize (such as white with purity, darkness with evil, etc.), but there is NO LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN BREAD AND JESUS' FLESH! Plus, while there would be symbolism in just a general memorial meal, there is none in eating His flesh and drinking His blood! Some may say that the ancient Jews viewed eating as symbolic for accepting God's blessings (Isaiah 55:1-3, Jeremiah 15:16, Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1), and Jesus was instituting a meal in which we accept Him and His blessings (or something along those lines). The problem, however, is that Jesus did not say that the bread and wine became Him; He said they became His flesh and blood. If Jesus was instituting a memorial meal by which we symbolically accept His blessings, why would He have us eat symbols of His flesh and blood (just the physical parts of Him) rather than symbols of His whole self? Also, why did Jesus consecrate the wine as well? If we are to just symbolically accept His blessings, why would He have us drink His blood in addition to eating His body? Wouldn't the body alone be enough to (hypothetically) represent accepting Him?
The only possible reason for Jesus giving us His flesh and blood to eat and drink (whether it be symbolically or literally) is because the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover (after all, the last Supper was a Passover meal). At Passover, the Jews sacrificed a lamb as a sin offering, and Jesus, as the perfect Paschal Lamb, is the fulfillment of this. Not only did the Jews sacrifice the lamb, but they also ate it. If non-Catholics are going to say that Jesus gave us His flesh and blood symbolically to fulfill this part of the Passover, they're only creating more problems. The Jews actually ate the lamb, not little lamb-shaped wafers that represented the lamb. To truly fulfill the Jewish Passover, Jesus would not only have to be sacrificed, but He would have to give us His flesh to eat!
Non-Catholics will sometimes say that in verse 29, Jesus called the Eucharistic wine "fruit of the vine," meaning that it wasn't really blood. However, they miss two key points:
1) While Matthew and Mark have Jesus calling it fruit of the vine after the consecration, Luke has Him saying that before the consecration, so we don't know who has the correct order. Since we don't know who has the correct order, all that can be shown is a POSSIBILITY of Jesus calling it fruit of the vine, but possibilities don't prove anything.
2) Jesus said "THIS fruit of the vine," indicating that He was talking about the Eucharistic wine (contrary to what some believe). He said that because He was giving an example of what He would drink in His Father's kingdom; let me give an analogy. If I'm eating pasta and say, "I won't eat this pasta again until I come back from college," I'm using the pasta in front of me as an example of what I'll eat after college; they are the same kind of pasta. Now, even though Jesus used the Eucharistic wine as an example of what He would drink in God's kingdom (which was regular wine), He was NOT saying that the Eucharistic wine was not His blood. Rather than using something with the substance of wine as an example, He used something with the accidents of wine; Jesus' point was not to equate the Eucharistic wine with regular wine on every single level. All Jesus wanted to do was equate the accidents of the two, which was enough to get His point across.
"Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'" - Luke 22:19
This is one of the most misunderstood verses in all of Scripture (in my opinion). Not only is the meaning of the Greek word for "remembrance" lost in the English translation, but it is twisted around and interpreted as the complete opposite.
Non-Catholics interpret "Do this in remembrance of me" as a reference to the Eucharist's symbolic nature. They say that since it's only a memorial, it can't be literal, but I've never understood this. Why can't the Eucharist literally be Jesus' body and blood just because we are to receive it in memory of Him? I just don't see it.
Actually, the Greek word for "remembrance," "anamnesis," is one of the two Greek words (out of nine) for "remembrance" that refer to sacrifice. The Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament translated before Christ), for example, uses it to refer to memorial sacrifices in Numbers 10:10 and Leviticus 24:7.
"The connection between sacrifice and anamnesis is made even stronger by taking into account that neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke use any of the Greek words at the Last Supper which refer only to a remembrance of events. There are nine different Greek words which refer to some type of remembrance, but only the one with an exclusively sacrificial connotation is used that the Last Supper, that is, anamnesis. The sacrificial connotation of anamnesis as distinct from other words which refer to mere remembrance is also noted in the Septuagint's use of these various Greek words. For example, Numbers 10:9-10�Significantly, the only other occurrence of anamnesis in the Septuagint, Leviticus 24:7, refers to the offering of pure incense and bread, the showbread." Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 2000), 123-125.
So, rather than instituting a mere memorial meal, Jesus was instituting a SACRIFICE; He was instituting the sacrifice of the mass, but I won't get into that here. For this essay, it is sufficient just to say two things:
1) The word "remembrance" does NOT mean merely figurative.
2) When you sacrifice something, it must be present. Jesus told us to offer His body and blood as a sacrifice, meaning that the Eucharist must be His literal body and
blood.
"Then Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' They said to him, 'Sir, give us this bread always.' Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.' Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, "I have come down from heaven"?' Jesus answered them, 'Do not complain among yourselves. No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life." - John 6:32-47
"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.'" - John 6:48-58
John 6:32-58, the Bread of Life Discourse as it is sometimes called, is the most straightforward and indisputable biblical proof for the Eucharist. I divided it into two sections because Jesus speaks metaphorically in the first and literally in the second.
In the first section, Jesus calls Himself to bread of life, referring to how He will spiritually nourish us. He is speaking metaphorically and commanding us to believe in Him. Now, non-Catholics like to object that Jesus called Himself many things, such as a gate (John 10:9) and a vine (John 15:1), yet we Catholics don't take those literally. Why, then should we take it literally when Jesus calls Himself the bread of life? The problem, however, is that we DON'T take Jesus' words about being the bread of life literally; at least not until He says that the bread is His flesh (in the second section). While there is a logical connection between Jesus and a door or a vine (if you don't believe me, read John chapters 10 and 15), there is no logical connection between bread and Jesus' flesh!
The next section, verses 48-58, is clearly literal; the context changes. Jesus starts to use the words "flesh," "blood," "eat," and "drink;" He changes the subject. There is no escaping Jesus' command to eat His flesh and drink His blood, so non-Catholics have come up with some clever ways to try and explain this passage. They say that the ancient Jews viewed eating as symbolic for accepting God's blessings (as I said before), but, like I said before, this explanation could only be valid if Jesus only said to eat Him. However, He commanded specifically to eat His flesh! By telling us to eat specifically His flesh, Jesus was indicating that any metaphors that would involve His whole person didn't apply. Plus, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood, among the ancient Jews, was symbolic for seriously injuring someone (Psalm 27:2, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:1-3, for example), so the general metaphor of eating wouldn't apply.
Jesus HAD to be commanding us to literally eat His body and drink His blood for a few reasons:
1) Like I said, eating one's flesh and drinking one's blood was symbolic for serious injury among ancient Jews, so Jesus would've been using a really bad metaphor.
2) He specifically said that the bread He would give for the world (the same bread we must eat) is His flesh.
3) The Jews questioned how Jesus could give His flesh to eat and His blood to drink; they were taking His words literally. Here, Jesus has a chance to clarify His words and either explain that He was only speaking symbolically or reinforce the Jews' literal interpretation. So, what did He do? He changes the word used for "eat" from "phago," which can have a symbolic meaning, to "trogo," which means literally "to chew" and cannot be used symbolically.
"This [a literal interpretation] in John's rendering of Jesus' words such that the more specific Greek word for chewing, "tr�g�," is chosen in place of the more generic Greek word for eating, "phag�." John reinforces the significance of the change by using tr�g� four more times: verse 54, "Whoever eats (tr�g�n) my flesh"; verse 56, "Whoever eats (trogon) my flesh"; verse 57, "Whoever eats (trogon) my flesh, even that one"; verse 58 "Whoever eats (trogon) this bread." Considering the exclusive meaning of tr�g� to depict one who is engaging in the process of masticating the food he is consuming, there is simply no logical reason for Jesus to switch from the more generic phag� to the more graphic tr�g�, unless it is His desire to make an explicit point about physical consumption and confirm the Jews' suspicion that He is indeed commanding them, literally, to eat His flesh." Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 2000), 183-185.
Non-Catholics will usually point out that Jesus said a) We must eat His flesh and drink His blood to be saved; otherwise we won't and b) If we eat His body and drink His blood we will be saved, implying that our salvation is dependent solely upon the Eucharist. However, Jesus was not giving a doctrinal dissertation on the Eucharist. Rather, He was giving a basic command to those who obey Him and follow His teachings: faithful Catholics must receive the Eucharist. Because His teachings are aimed at those who try to follow them all as best as possible, He does not discuss every single nuance, such as those who are invincibly ignorant or those who receive the Eucharist without being faithful Catholics.
"It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." - John 6:63
Non-Catholics will often point to this verse to try and prove that John 6 is only symbolic, but it proves no such thing for two reasons.
1) Whenever the words "spirit" and "flesh" are contrasted, they NEVER mean symbolic and literal; they always mean "holy, pure, and of God," as opposed to "sinful, polluted, and of man" (Matthew 26:41, Romans 7:5-6, for example). Jesus was saying that His words were of God and could only be understood correctly through faith.
2) If Jesus was saying that all flesh is useless, then He would be saying that His flesh was also useless! However, we know that this is not the case because if it was, then the Incarnation (and everything that follows from it) was useless, but it wasn't.
"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16
How much clearer can Paul get? Does he have to say, "The Eucharist is Jesus' literal, physical body and blood!"? How can we share in Jesus' body and blood if we consume mere symbols?
Plus, Paul's intention becomes clear when we read the verse in context. He is comparing the Eucharistic sacrifice with the Jewish sacrifices (verse 18: "Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?") and pagan sacrifices (verses 19-20: "What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons."), both of which were actual sacrifices, not mere memorials. For the comparisons to be legitimate, the Eucharist must also be a real sacrifice, which depends on Jesus being truly, physically present in the Eucharist.
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves." - 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
Paul says that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which means to be guilty of murder. Now, how can one be guilty of murder just by eating a piece of bread and drinking some wine? This passage makes more sense if the Eucharist is Jesus' physical flesh and blood because then, if we receive Him unworthily, we are committing a sacrilege.
"If anyone of the house of Israel or of the aliens who reside among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut that person off from the people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel: No person among you shall eat blood, nor shall any alien who resides among you eat blood. And anyone of the people of Israel, or of the aliens who reside among them, who hunts down an animal or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature--its blood is its life; therefore I have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off." - Leviticus 17:10-14
Here, God commands the Jews not to eat the blood of any creature, and some non-Catholics claim that if Jesus gave His apostles His literal blood to drink, He would be breaking this command. While at first this may seem like a legitimate objection, let's take a closer look at it.
God did not want the Jews to eat blood because it was the life of every creature, and He didn't want them to consume another creature's life. However, when we receive the Eucharist, that's the whole point. We are more fully united with Jesus, and we abide in Him; God WANTS us to share in His life. Plus, this passage is referring to crude blood in the form of blood, not Jesus' sacramental blood in the form of wine.
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29
This is the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, and it commanded the Gentiles to abstain from blood. This passage, like the previous one, is referring to crude blood, not Jesus' sacramental blood. That the Eucharist is an exception to this command was understood implicitly, just as they understood that it was also an exception to Leviticus 17:10-14.
