1. I believe you are mistaken concerning participation in the Eucharist being a necessary part of salvation in Catholic theology: The following is from the Question and Answer Cathechism by John Hardin, S.J. (1981)

Is the Eucharist necessary for salvation?
The Eucharist is necessary for salvation, to be received either sacramentally or in desire . . . Those who, through no fault of their own, do not realize this can receive the necessary grace to remain in God’s friendship through other means. (QAC, 245)

2. Concerning “the flesh”: Of course we understand the significance of the incarnation – but Christ himself said that regarding partaking of his body, it is not about his flesh, it is about faith. So, you are making an inaccurate application of his words in context. Context always determines the meaning of any passage.

3. Concerning 1 Cor. 10:16 – the Greek word behind the translation “communion” which is found in some Bibles, is “koinonia” and is better translated “fellowship” – which makes the correct interpretation of the passage more clear. The translation you cite, “participation,” is not the best way to understand the passage, and seems that it may be a theologically-driven translation. Also, again, in context, Paul is making a distinction between the flesh and spirit. In verse 18, he writes, “Observe Israel after the flesh” – which means that he is switching from the meaning of the bread and cup, which are spiritual only, to look at a physical parallel that illustrates the spiritual. He then talks about the actual flesh of animals in Israel’s sacrificial system. So, the flesh in the physical sacrifices was anticipating the spiritual meaning of the Lord’s table – not equating the two as both being literally the flesh as taught in the doctrine of the “real presence.”

In conjunction with this, Scripture nowhere teaches that the Lord’s table is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross. For this to be true, the sacrifice of the cross would have to be continuing without interruption for the last 2000 years – which would essentially be the Catholic position – that either the mass is being celebrated somewhere on the earth at every moment of the day – or at minimum the host is being continually held in monstrances between masses. However, this directly contradicts Hebrews 9:24-28 – which explicitly states that the sacrifice is once for all and that it came to an end is the same as when our physical life comes to an end and then we face judgment. The duration of physical life is finite – as is the duration of the sacrifice of the cross. It is not continual. Hebrews 9:24b-25a – “(Jesus) appear(s) in the presence of God for us; not that he should offer himself often…”

4. Concerning “Do you, too, wish also to leave”: Many disciples had already left him, because they thought he was still talking about his literal flesh – which was repulsive to a Jew – and rightfully so. The apostles didn’t leave because they finally understood his explanation – as they usually did after he gave the interpretation of his parabolic teaching, which no one ever got until he explained it. The reason they stayed – and were even able to stay given the Jewish nature of their faith – was because they understood that he was definitely not talking about this being his literal flesh. So, once again, proper exegesis of the passage is the strongest possible argument against the doctrine of the real presence.

Concerning the early church fathers, I don’t think there is universal agreement in how their words should be understood in every case.

But besides that, historical theology is the servant to biblical theology. The doctrine had to begin somewhere – and it doesn’t matter much whether it was in the second century or the twentieth century. The official denial of the doctrine is now up to 500 years – and the denial undoubtedly goes back much longer than that – arguably also to the first century. But neither validates or invalidates the doctrine. It rises or falls on exegesis alone.

However, debating or even dealing with Catholic theology and the doctrine of the real presence was not the point of this blog and I would like to keep the comments relevant to that.

There will be articles and blogs that do deal with these things from time to time.

Thanks.
Dave James

In John 6:35, Jesus says, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me, and who believes in me shall never thirst.” Besides the obvious, that he is dealing in spiritual truth is indicated by the fact that he talks about never thirsting when talking about “food.” However, they did not come to him because they did not believe (6:36).

He reiterates the spiritual truth and the matter of faith in him as being the subject of what he is teaching in verse 40: “…that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

At these words, the Jews begin murmuring, which sets the stage, as it always does, for parabolic teaching – which is intended to obscure the truth for those who do not have “ears to hear.”

Then for a third time, he speaks explicitly that the issue – the only issue – is faith in him: “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life.” (6:46-48)

Then because of their unbelief he sets up the parabolic / metaphorical statement by referring to the manna which God gave in the wilderness. (6:49-50) The physical manna gave physical life. The spiritual “bread” will give “spiritual life.”

So the parallel is between the exclusively physical and the exclusively spiritual – not between the physical and a hybrid physical / spiritual which is required by the doctrine of the “real presence” / transubstantiation.

This forms a transition to the symbolic language he is about to use to hide the spiritual truth from those who have not believed and have set themselves against him – and to confound them and confirm them in their hardness of heart.

You note that if this is a spiritual truth rather than literal, that he let the crowd walk away without understanding him correctly. However, that is precisely what he almost always did. You correctly note that he always clarifies himself when people don’t understand – however, he almost never clarifies the truth to the unbelieving crowds – but lets them walk away. This is where there is a mistake in your analysis. The clarification he usually gives is always to the disciples alone – not to the crowds.

And this pattern is repeated here. He does clarify himself to the disciples – but not to confirm that he is speaking literally of a requirement to eat his actual body and blood: “Does this offend you? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The word that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

So, Jesus clearly tells the disciples that the “flesh profits nothing” – so he is not speaking of his literal flesh. The truth is exclusively spiritual. And the problem here, as it has been from the beginning of this passage – some didn’t believe.

Therefore, this passage not only clearly does not teach transubstantiation – it instead provides perhaps the strongest single exegetical argument against it.

Beyond this there are innumerable problems with the doctrine. To note just three:

1. The doctrine of transubstantiation is a mystical, not a spiritual view. The two are not the same. According to the doctrine of transubstantiation a miracle occurs. However, miracles never deceive the senses – which is exactly what would be happening if this doctrine were true.

2. The Lord’s supper is only mentioned in one letter to the churches. However, in Catholic theology, the Mass and the Eucharist are the very center of the life of the church – and rightfully so if the real presence is true. So, the absence of any teaching concerning this is insurmountable – particularly regarding the absence in the Pastoral Epistles.

3. In Roman Catholic theology, participation in the Mass and partaking of the host is a requirement for salvation. According to Catholic dogma, it is the primary means of communicating God’s grace – and belief in the real presence is obligatory – and meaning denial is a mortal sin. However, this doctrine is not mentioned in one single passage related to salvation or the requirements for eternal life. Given the monumental importance, the fact that it is mentioned in only one passage – and that one passage is not a salvation passage – this, too, is an extremely difficult problem that is virtually impossible to explain.

Furthermore, if Christ indeed intended the Catholic viewpoint, then Paul would certainly have reiterated this in Romans and elsewhere. Paul makes no mention of the bread and wine becoming the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is inconceivable that he would have neglected to have written a thorough explanation of this if it were true.

The Catholic doctrine, of course, becomes even more heretical when one considers that Catholic priests actually teach they are re-enacting the crucifixion of Christ each time they celebrate their mass. Nothing could be further from the Biblical truth that Christ offered Himself a perfect sacrifice once and for all.

The whole notion of a sacrament, of course, is not Biblical, if by sacrament one means a “means of grace” and attaches spiritual value, rather than symbolic value, to rituals and objects.

It is certainly an emotional remembrance for a believer — how could it not be? — but it is not sexual.