Catholic Answer Series: The Real Presence: An Apologetic Defense

Non-Catholic attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church, mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall 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?’" (John 6:51–52). His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "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" (John 6:63). But he knew some did not believe. "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he corrected himself. But he did not correct himself in light of the actions of these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

Non-Catholic’s Main Argument
For Anti-Catholic writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "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." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense? Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, and then said their doing so would be pointless? 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 what he was saying? The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else in the world. In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true. And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Anti-Catholic position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. Think about it…

What Did the First Christians Say?
Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they 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" (6:2, 7:1). Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20). Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). Why would such care and worry be needed if we are just partaking in mere bread and wine?

Unanimous Testimony
Whatever else might be said, written testaments confirm that the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. For most Anti-Catholics, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality, grace, being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Anti-Catholics, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided. In my opinion, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Anti-Catholics would have advised him to adopt a different approach. But, I believe, God approves of matter…he approves of it because he created it…and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

The Liberal Media Machine Claims Another Victim

As I was driving back from the camp that will be our retreat site for our Confirmation retreat this morning with Steve, I kept searching and searching my mind for something to write about today. Of course, I could just write about what I did with my weekend and point out the fact that I feel like I have nothing going on in my life, but I have written two or three pages to the contrary. Or I could write about the Rangers winning their past two games or the Mavericks losing their first playoff game or the Stars forcing a game seven, but I really don’t like writing about sports all the time. I have written so much about the Rangers lately that I probably should be getting a check from their publicity department. I have finished the outline for my bible study with the junior high kids tonight and double checked both email accounts. Still couldn’t think of anything to write about when…oh look, another story about the Virginia Tech shootings. But this one was different. Don’t get me wrong, it was a horrible tragedy and the victims, students, and families are all in my prayers, but are we being too sensationalist about this. I wrote a while back about the Don Imus’ assumed racial comments and chimed in on the sensationalism about that. Then the Va. Tech thing happens and the focus moves from that to this. Why such hoopla? These are real people with real lives and real problems who deserve to be respected and not flaunted or haunted by media coverage. Geez, when will we stop making such a big deal out of these things? When will we be able to face it, accept it, embrace it, and move on?

The article I just came across was only indirectly related to the Va. Tech shootings, but the reaction was close to the same. An adjunct professor at Emmanuel College in Boston was fired for having a discussion about topics that parallel the Va. Tech shootings. Nicholas Winset taught financial accounting at the college where the administration had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. What exactly did he do or say that warranted his firing? The five-minute demonstration on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood." During the demonstration, Winset pointed a marker at some students and said "pow," pretending to shoot them. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed. Oh no…they were pointing markers at each other! What’s next? Pillow fights? Give me a break, people, this is college and involving demonstrations such as this into lecturing is the only way to keep students from dozing off. Young people are becoming more and more desensitized as the years go by, so in order to get their attention and hold it for any given about of time you have to be edgy and controversial. Often times when the high school youth leaders won’t pay attention to me during a meeting I will throw something or break something to get their attention, and then they are fixated.

Plus, classrooms are meant to be places where you expand your mind and your horizons. The classroom is where you leave naivety at the door and come to learn about the truth in the world. All Winset was trying to do is illustrate a true situation and alternatives to the outcome that was achieved by the gunmen at Va. Tech. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus. Winset argued that the liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action. I’ve watched the video and this is obviously an intelligent man who was trying to get his students to think outside the norm and fully understand the topics he was presenting. This is not a malicious, violent, or irreverent man getting his jollies off by spoofing the original shooting. He is not unlike any other idealistic college professor I have ever met, full of zeal for what he believes.

What I find fascinating about this whole thing is that during this demonstration Winset had discussed the “celebration of victimhood” that has been prevalent during the past week where the media has looked for anyone and everyone at Va. Tech to make a statement about what happened. Some of them who weren’t even on campus at the time were paraded in front of glinting camera lenses to give a statement. Everyone is a victim and the people just eat that up. And if you aren’t broken up enough about what happened, you are a cold heartless asshole (i.e. see Simon Cowl incident on American Idol). Even I had to write at the beginning of the blog who sad I was just so no one would misunderstand my following rant as irreverence for the dead. The irony is that Winset was introducing this idea to students and it was ultimately the reason he was fired.

I am going to leave this blog with a shocking statement for everyone to think about. What do the victims really want? The girls on the Rutgers' basketball team were offended by Don Imus’ comments, but once they met him and he apologized to them they said they liked him. But the media (and media hogs like Al Sharpton) forced the issue before the real victims had anything to say and fired Don Imus. He lost his livelihood over this sensationalism. The real victims of the Va. Tech shootings are dead or have buried someone important to them in the past week. These people don’t want the cameras around anymore; they want to be able to deal with their loss on their own. Lives were lost and the pain is only compounded by this sensationalism. If there was a victim of Nicholas Winset’s classroom demonstration, it was the students in the classroom. What did one of those students have to say? Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive. He lost his livelihood as a result of media sensationalism.