“Well, if it’s just a symbol, to Hell
with it!”
The above
quote is from a Catholic author and apologist, Mary Flannery O’Connor, at a
literary gathering, and it was intended as a rebuke toward a writer who
commented that the Catholic Eucharist was a symbol. It seems that emotions run high between
Catholics and Protestants when speaking on this particular topic.
But the
quote from O’Connor makes one think. If
the Catholic Eucharist is really all that the Catholic Church says it is, then
every single one of us who names the name of Christ should line up to worship
this Eucharist. However… if Catholics are wrong
about this, they are guilty of outright idolatry. Yes, the stakes are high, so we should make sure of what the Living God says on
this topic.
There is
much written on this subject, for and against, but our only sure hope of
finding the truth is in God’s Word:
“Thy Word is truth…” (John 17:17).
Joe’s Article
I would now
like to address an article from Catholic Answers written by Catholic author,
apologist, and speaker, Joe Heschmeyer, who seems to be a likeable and
intelligent guy. His article is titled, “5 Tests for Your Faith in the Eucharist” and
it was written May 18, 2026. You can
find it here:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/5-tests-for-your-faith-in-the-eucharist
In order to know
if you have the correct and biblical interpretation on the subject of the
Eucharist, Joe suggests that your beliefs should be “strange, sacrificial,
serious, sacramental and shocking.”
Ok, that’s
an interesting statement, to say the least, so let’s dig in and see what Joe
has to say.
Strange
First, he
says the proper Christian understanding of the Eucharist should be strange and hard to accept.
Joe is
referring to the events in the gospel of John in chapter 6, where Jesus keeps
telling His listeners that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to be
saved. Joe is also saying that Jesus is
referring to the Eucharist when He said these things. At this time, many of Jesus’ followers walked
away from Him because they felt that the words of Jesus were hard. (By the way, Jesus was never obligated to
chase after, or explain anything to, anyone who
purposely walks away from Him!)
It seems
that Joe is suggesting that since this teaching was initially received as strange
and hard-to-accept for Jesus’ audience (John 6), it should be taken that
way by everybody.
But the
truthfulness of a particular teaching is not determined by the reaction of the
audience, but rather by measuring that teaching against the whole of
Scripture.
More to the
point, either the “literalness” or the symbolism of any teaching is determined
by context and common sense. As many
people know, Catholics believe that after the priest consecrates the Eucharist,
it is changed into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). To promote this teaching, Catholic apologists
lean heavily on John 6, which is also called the “Bread of Life” discourse. They believe that this chapter helps to prove
that Jesus was speaking literally here about changes in the bread and wine.
If there
were no symbolism at all in the “Bread of Life” discourse, I might agree with
the Catholic Church, but symbolism is not only present, it is abundant in this chapter:
“And Jesus said unto
them, ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he
that believeth on Me shall never thirst.’” (John 6:35)
This is a pivotal verse for this whole chapter,
where “coming to Him” is equated with no longer hungering, and “believing on
Him” is equated with no longer thirsting.
This is obviously symbolic
language. I don’t think that anyone in
this audience is thinking that they would never physically hunger or thirst again if they came to Jesus and
believed on Him.
Interestingly,
Jesus continues to refer to “believing
in Him” in v. 29, 36, 40, 47, and 64 – and this extends into, and well
past, the “eat My flesh and drink My blood” language, which ends at v. 58.
Furthermore,
Jesus also continues to use this “coming to
Him” language in v. 37, 44, 45, and 65 – and again, it extends well into
the “eat My flesh” passages.
So, because
of this, there is obviously figurative language throughout John 6, pointing strongly
toward a symbolic eating of His flesh
and a symbolic drinking of His
blood. This imagery simply refers to
embracing, partaking of, and trusting in what Jesus was going to do on the
cross, where man’s sin-debt was to be paid.
Sacrificial
Joe also points
out that the apostle Paul compares the Jewish sacrifices with the heathen
sacrifices of his day and that a person becomes a partner with whichever altar
he chooses to partake of (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). This is true, but this does absolutely
nothing to prove transubstantiation, nor does it prove that the Lord’s Supper
is a sacrifice. Joe then says:
“If your
understanding of the Eucharist isn’t
a sacrifice comparable to the fleshly sacrifices offered in the temple in
Jerusalem or in pagan rites, then you don’t believe what Paul believed.”
Catholics
love to point out the “sacrificial overtones” in Paul’s description of the
Lord’s Supper/Communion service (1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 11:20-34). But of
course there are sacrificial overtones – the bread and wine in Communion
are pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross! The bread represents His broken body and the
wine, His shed blood. The ritual itself
is not a sacrifice, but it points to the
sacrifice that happened on Calvary!
Serious
Joe then points
out that Paul directly received the information he got from Jesus concerning
the Eucharist/Communion. According to
Joe, this is how seriously Jesus takes the Eucharist and adds:
“He doesn’t
just leave it up to us to figure out how best to commemorate or honor or
worship him.”
Joe then
points to how some in the church eat and drink of the elements unworthily and
profane the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:28-30). He then says:
“It’s hard
to square this seriousness with a symbolic view of the Eucharist.”
But I would
say, no, it’s not hard at all. Consider Genesis
17:9-14:
(v. 9) – “And God said
unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep My covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after
thee in their generations.
(v. 10) – This is My
covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee;
Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
(v. 11) – And ye shall
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token [sign] of the covenant betwixt Me and
you.”
(v. 13) – “… and My
covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”
(v. 14) – “And the
uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that
soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.”
Ok, so here
we have circumcision, which is a TOKEN of the covenant (v. 11) between God and Abraham. A token is a SIGN, a SYMBOL of the
covenant. Yet, notice the consequences
for ignoring or abusing this “mere sign.”
The penalty was for one to be CUT OFF from God’s people! (See also Exodus 31:14-15)
That sounds
like a pretty stiff punishment for profaning a mere symbol, doesn’t it?
So, yes, the
Eucharist/Communion (like circumcision) can indeed be just a symbol, yet still endanger the one who abuses or disrespects
the elements involved. The reason is
because of what the elements in the Lord’s Supper POINT TO – i.e., the work and
suffering of Jesus Christ on Calvary.
These people in the church at Corinth were not discerning what these
elements represented. THAT’S why church
members were sick and dying (1 Corinthians 11:30), not because the
bread and wine supposedly turn into Jesus’ body and blood through
transubstantiation.
If you want
to see a real, biblical and verifiable miraculous
example of transubstantiation, look to the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-10). The Catholic “miracle” of the Eucharist at
Mass is none of these.
By the way, Jesus uses the
same type of language in the New Testament as the Father did in the Old
Testament:
Genesis 17:10 – This [circumcision] is My covenant… between Me and you…
Luke 22:20 – … This cup
[wine] is
the New Testament [New Covenant] in My blood…
1 Corinthians 11:25 – This
cup [wine] is
the New Testament [New Covenant] in My blood…
Both the Father and Jesus call the symbols a “covenant” in the passages just above. Now, we all know that a covenant is an intangible thing – an agreement, a contract, or a promise to do something. But the tangible bread and wine (as well as Abraham’s circumcision) are not the actual covenant, itself, but are simply symbols of that covenant between God and man. (See also Exodus 31:12-13; 16).
No doubt,
the apostles at the Last Supper recognized Jesus’ use of the symbolic language
from Genesis
17 and Exodus 31. So, if the
cup (wine) is a symbol, so is the bread.
Thus, we see
that symbolism is used in John 6 (as demonstrated earlier) and
symbolism is also used again at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). This would cancel out any purely “literal”
language of transubstantiation.
Catholics
will say that since Jesus didn’t explain His reasoning for the “strong
language” in John 6, then He must
have been speaking literally. Well,
Jesus most likely had explained it to His true followers later on (privately)
in the John 6 event, but He certainly made the symbolism known at the
Last Supper.
Sacramental
Joe then
points out that Ignatius of Antioch “adopts a sacramentarian stance” concerning
the events of John 6 and says that Ignatius seems to have been a disciple of
John. Joe then states:
“If anyone
can shed light on what John 6 means, surely it is one of John’s own students.”
Well, no
doubt we can learn some things from John’s students, but I think that we should
not be overlooking the very words of the apostle John and Jesus Christ, Himself! Why turn to fallible church fathers when you can go directly to the infallible and inspired words of Jesus and the apostles in Scripture (2
Timothy 3:16-17)?
We should
follow the example of Jesus: When He quoted Scripture to the devil (Matthew
4:3-4) and the devil quoted Scripture right back at Him (v.
5-6), did Jesus turn to someone else for clarity and authority, like
the venerable rabbis, scribes or scholars of His day? No, Jesus simply went EVEN DEEPER INTO THE
SCRIPTURES (v. 7) as an example of where to turn (… it is also written)! Thus, He provided a fuller understanding. So, we do have enough evidence in the
Scriptures to determine that Jesus was speaking symbolically in the “Bread of Life”
discourse, as pointed out above.
Concerning
sacraments, I would like to point out that there is no such thing in Scripture
as a sacrament, as described by the Catholic Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the sacraments confer the grace
that they signify” (CCC #1127) and “the sacraments are efficacious signs of
grace” (CCC #1131), etc., etc.
So, according
to Catholicism, sacraments are rituals/signs that supposedly convey grace to
the individual. But grace (by
definition) is not something that can be bought, earned or merited by doing a
prescribed ritual. Rituals are works
and, according to Scripture, we don’t get grace by works (Romans 11:6). We get grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and through humility (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6; 1
Peter 5:5).
See this
article on sacraments:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html
Note also
that the Catholic Church is forced to admit that the Eucharist is indeed a
symbol (since it is known to them as a sacrament), but they say that it is not just a symbol. In other words, according to Catholics, the
Eucharist is both a symbol of Jesus,
and it is also actually Jesus after
consecration!
But how can something
be a symbol of XYZ and at the same
time, be the actual XYZ, itself? If you were holding a photograph of yourself
and you told someone “This is me,” what you really mean is “This is a picture,
or symbol, or representation of me.” The
picture cannot be the actual “you.” Only
YOU, YOURSELF are the actual “you.”
By
definition, nothing can be both a symbol of something AND its reality. It is either one or the other, but it can’t
be a symbol of itself! You can’t have it
both ways. There is nothing like this in
nature or in Scripture. You can’t just
create unbiblical concepts just so your theology can work. Again, this is not a biblical concept, but is
simply a deceptive game of semantics used by the Catholic Church.
Shocking
Finally, Joe
goes on to say that the crowd in John 6 found Jesus’ words shocking
and even repulsive, and that later on in the ancient world, some even saw
Christians as cannibalistic, because of the Eucharist. I can see their point! But Catholics seem to somehow take this as a
badge of honor.
Nevertheless,
the New Testament tells us that the ritual of Communion/Eucharist is simply a memorial (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians
11:24-25) of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Paul tells us its purpose is to proclaim the
Lord’s death till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). And we do exactly that. This goal of proclaiming His death can
certainly be achieved without any kind of literal or physical change in the
elements.
Conclusion
Time and
time again, the Old Testament Jews were lured into the snare of idolatry (Exodus
23:32-33). Many lost their souls
because of it. It seemed to be the
devil’s most useful tool in the Old Testament.
Many people today seem to think that idolatry has largely “gone away,”
but we also have New Testament warnings against this sin (e.g., 1
Corinthians 10:14; Galatians 5:19-21).
Like I said
earlier, the stakes are high. If there
is ANY symbolism at all in the “Eucharistic” passages (and there is), I would
be extremely cautious about embracing a “literal” understanding of it. Any and all of us can freely pray to, spend
time with, and worship Jesus Christ whenever
we want to and wherever we are in the
world, even if we are nowhere near the elements of bread and wine. Transubstantiation is not at all needed to
perform these acts of worship.
Remember, the
Last Supper is not about the Church’s
sacrifice to God in the Mass, but it is about God’s sacrifice provided for mankind on the cross.
The bottom
line is that the Catholic Eucharist is a deception and a dangerous trap that
leads to idolatry.
See this
link for more on the Eucharist:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-sacrament-of-eucharist.html
