The Holy Communion Eucharist (Gk: ‘eucharisteo’ = give thanks), also known as the Lord’s Supper, commemorates the Last Supper Jesus shared with the Disciples before His crucifixion during their observation of the traditional seder meal served on the 15th and 16th of the month of Nisan in Jewish homes to commemorate the festival of Passover (Pascha) when the Jewish people were delivered from Egyptian bondage in the days of Moses and relived as a personal spiritual event each year.
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of 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 not drink again 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 ESV)
The Holy Communion Eucharist is at the center of Christian worship. Along with baptism, it is one of the two sacraments in the New Testament that are repeated as a celebration and as an anticipation in this life of the joys of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb that is to come in the Kingdom of God (Revelation 19:9). The Eucharist was intended as both a symbol and a means of nurturing unity within the church. It focuses attention on the anticipation of Jesus's return and the coming glory of Heaven.
Early Christians observed the Eucharist annually at Passover. It then transitioned to weekly fellowship meals, and over 1000 years later, it became a daily practice in the Roman Catholic Church as a sacramental ordinance and sacrificial ritual that is the real presence of the transubstantiated body and blood of Jesus.
The Eucharist has always been considered a sacrament by the vast majority of Churches worldwide as a memorial of Jesus's sacrifice as the final payment for the forgiveness of sin. In many Christian traditions, the Eucharist is viewed as symbolic or commemorative as an expression of the universal Christian faith but not as a channel of grace. Sharing in Holy Communion enhances and deepens the communion of fellow Christians with Jesus and each other.
Transubstantiation
During the Eucharist, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) believes that the substance of consecrated bread and wine is literally changed (i.e., transubstantiated) into the actual body and blood of Jesus, even though the outward appearance and physical characteristics remain the same.
According to the Modern Catholic Dictionary by John Hardon (2024), “transubstantiation” refers to “the complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term itself was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. Before the sixth century, the Eastern Fathers preferred the term meta-ousiosis, meaning "change of being." In contrast, the Latin tradition developed the term 'transubstantiation,' which means "change of substance," and was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215. The Council of Trent (AD 1551), in defining the "wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood" of Christ, added, "which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation" (Denzinger AD 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not appear in any subject or substance whatsoever. Yet they are not make-believe. They are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantio, change of substance.) [TRANSUBSTANTIATION | Catholic Culture.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36918]
According to the Bible, using the rules of biblical hermeneutics to exegete the Scriptures, the Apostles make no mention of transubstantiation in any way, manner, or form, nor did the early Church Fathers for hundreds of years, contrary to the teaching of the RCC. The fundamental biblical doctrine of the sacrament Communion was a symbolic memorial and not a subject of theological controversy and ecclesiastical action until the time of Paschius Radbert in the ninth century. Even the RCC couldn’t agree with the 4th Lateran Council in AD 1215 when it gave the first dogmatic expression and formally set forth transubstantiation as the official teaching of the RCC, which was the complete opposite of the first 900 years of church teaching. This was further affirmed by the Council of Trent, which also dogmatically asserted that the nature of the Lord’s Supper was that of a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.
Here are a few of the early Church Fathers' teachings on the Eucharist that are in complete opposition to the RCC.
- Pope Gelasius taught a metabolic and symbolic view of the Eucharist.
- The Didache presents the eucharistic elements as bread and wine but refers to them as spiritual food and drink. There is no indication that the Didache views the elements as being transformed in any way.
- Justin Martyr, in Trypho 70, spoke of the elements as bread and wine, which Christ inaugurated as a memorial and remembrance of His body and blood.
- Irenaeus wrote about the spiritual character of the sacrifice offered in the Eucharist, which replaced the ancient offerings of the sanctuary for Christians. The offering of the Eucharist was not fleshly but spiritual and, therefore, pure.
- Tertullian referred to the eucharistic elements of bread and wine as symbols or figures representing the body and blood of Christ and specifically stated that they were not the literal body and blood of the Lord.
- Clement of Alexandria also called the bread and wine symbols of the body and blood of Christ and taught that the communicant received not the physical but the spiritual life of Christ.
- Saint Ambrose (AD 374-397), the Bishop of Milan, wrote a treatise, Ambrosian De Sacramentis, which stated that the Eucharist was an imitation of the Last Supper, in word and act, solemnly performed before God. The repetition of the Lord’s words is regarded as establishing the sacramental association of the bread and wine with the divine realities they represent; therefore, the oblation was a figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- During the Carolingian period (AD 757-887), the Augustinians emphasized the ordinance's symbolical character, presenting it as a memorial and a symbol.
Augustine taught that the Sacraments, including the Eucharist, are signs and figures that represent or symbolize spiritual realities, and he gave very clear instructions and principles for determining whether or not a passage of Scripture is to be interpreted literally or figuratively. He says that passages of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture and uses John 6 as a specific example of a passage that is to be interpreted figuratively. He clearly made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence. He said that Christ’s physical body cannot be present literally in the Eucharist because He is physically at the right hand of God in Heaven and will be there until He comes again, even though He is spiritually present. Because Jesus is physically in Heaven, Augustine interpreted the discourse in John 6 of eating His flesh and drinking his blood figuratively. He taught that Christ is not talking about the literal eating and drinking of his body and blood but is employing figurative terms to describe what it means to appropriate him and his atoning sacrifice by faith spiritually. His presence is spiritual, and the sacrament is spiritual and not physical. He says that true eating and drinking means that a person abides in Christ, and he clearly distinguishes this from partaking in the sacrament. If a person partakes of the sacrament but does not abide in Christ, he does not eat the flesh of Christ or drink his blood.
- Origen, Cyprian, Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macarius of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch also identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ and saw them as representative symbols of spiritual realities that were made vehicles of divine grace and did not change their nature, remaining in their former substance, appearance, and form, visible and tangible as before.
Communion
"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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58 NIV)
RCC doctrine affirms that a literal interpretation of the phrases "feeds on my flesh" and "drinks my blood" demands it by literal wording. By the inference, Paul draws from it that it is a sin against the "body and blood" of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27), and by the normal use of the word "is" in Jesus’ statement, "This is my body" (see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 375).
In the first three Gospels, Jesus is represented as saying, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" about the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26,28; Mark 14:21,24; Luke 22:19,21 – also 1 Corinthians 15:24). The RCC says that the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus even though they still look, taste, and smell like typical bread and wine.
One of the Rules of biblical Hermeneutics is that a historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible that is literally true does not demand that everything be taken literally because not everything in the Bible is true literally. The literal sense allows for figures of speech, such as speaking of Jesus as "the Bread of Life," which should be eaten (John 6:32-33), and immediately precedes this discourse on "eating his flesh" (James 6:52-71).
I remember getting it drilled into my head that context, context, and context are everything in Bible interpretation. A verse can only mean what the original author meant it to mean and words can never mean what was never meant. Those who try to give words different meanings than what they actually mean in the grammatical and historical context of the original language are guilty of committing nescient eisegesis and contextomy, which is defined as 'reading one's own presuppositions and personal theological perspectives into a passage to make it say what they want it to say and support their confirmation bias. A person can't take a word(s) from the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic and try to give it a meaning from a modern dictionary that is in the language it was translated into. If you only look at the text and not the context, you get conned.
The context provides evidence that Jesus did not intend these statements to be taken literally. If "eating his flesh" is to be taken literally, then everyone, including unbelievers who partake of Communion, is saved since Jesus said all who partake of it are given "eternal life" (John 6:55). The Bible is clear that simply taking Communion is not the condition for receiving the gift of eternal life, but instead belief is. Jesus said that "everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life (John 3:14-18), and I will raise him up in the last day" (John 6:40). He also said a person must be Born-Again to be saved (John 3:3-7) but did not say they needed to be baptized or partake of Communion.
The word "eating/eat" is a familiar biblical figure of speech for believing in God and ingesting spiritual nourishment from Him (Psalm 34:8; Isaiah 55:1; Ezekiel 3:2-3; 1 Peter 2:2-3). Jesus spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life, which, like the manna in the wilderness, was eaten daily (John 6:32-33).
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.” (John 6:56 NIV)
The word “remains” is the Greek verb 'menei' which means to abide, dwell, and expresses continual mystical fellowship between Jesus and the Born-Again Christian (John 15:4-7; 1 John 2:6,27-28; 3:6,24; 4:12,16). There is no reference to the Lord's Supper but simply to mystical fellowship with Jesus.
“Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.” (1 Corinthians12:12-14 NIV)
The word "body" (Gk: ‘soma)’ has both a physical meaning as well as a spiritual meaning in other places in the New Testament. Every Born-Again Christian is a member/part of the spiritual body of Christ. A sin against them is a sin against Jesus (Acts 9:5). The regular use of the word "is" is often employed in figures of speech such as Jesus is the vine (John 15); the water of Life (John 4), and the door (John 10).
“And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19 NIV)
When Jesus said, "This is my body," everyone present knew it was not literally His real body but a piece of bread being held by His real body (hand). The communion service in the first-century church was a memorial of Jesus' death. It was not a reenactment and partaking of His literal physical death but a proclamation of His death and spiritual participation with other Born-Again Believers (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:25-26).
The Bible is filled with metaphors (see Psalm 18:2). The word describing Jesus' "flesh" as "true food" (John 6:55) does not mean it must be physical but points to the fact that it was "real" (Gk: 'alathas'), that is a spiritual reality, not ordinary physical flesh.
Jesus often spoke in metaphors and figures of speech that can only have a spiritual meaning. If the consecrated communion elements are really His body, then it can be worshipped, which is idolatry. Jesus sacrificed Himself once and for all in His death on the Cross (Hebrews 10:12).
When Jesus spoke about Communion, He said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63). He often used figures of speech, as noted in the Book of John, to describe Himself such as "water" (vs. 4:14), "bread" (vs. 6:35), "light" (vs. 8:12), the "door" (vs 10:7, 9), and the "vine" (vs 15:1). A literalistic approach makes no sense in any of these cases.
The Bible is the final authority for doctrine, not the church Fathers. It is clear that heresy and false doctrines began early (John 21:20-23;1 Timothy 4:1; 1 John 4:1-6; Colossians 2:8-23). The earliest Church Fathers can be used to support a biblical doctrine, but belief in the doctrine should be based on God's direct revelation in the Bible. Most of the Church Fathers in the first few centuries did not explicitly speak of transubstantiation but, at best, a real presence of Jesus and the symbolic nature of Communion. No council of the early Church affirmed transubstantiation until the Fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) and later at the Council of Trent (AD 1551).
The time of the institution of Communion is found in John 13 after the Passover, not in John 6 after the sermon on the Bread of Life; that is an entirely different time and context. The Last Supper occurred one year later than the incidents recorded in this chapter.
There is a close parallel between John 6:40 and John 6:54 that reveals they are referring to the same thing. The phrases "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood" and "everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him" have eternal life are a direct parallel, and the former is the symbolic way of referring to the latter. The language used is so utterly unqualified that if its primary reference is to Communion, the conclusion must be that the one thing necessary for eternal life is participation at the Lord's Table. That would contradict the earlier parts of the discourse, which affirms that belief in the Son is the only necessary condition for receiving eternal life (John 3:16;18,36;6:40).
When Jesus told the crowd to "eat" his flesh, they reacted negatively (John 6:52,60,66). However, He did not retract the promise, try to change their understanding of His words, or explain that He had been speaking poetically or metaphorically.
Jesus did not always correct the Disciples' misunderstanding directly or immediately (See John 2:19-22). He corrected their literalistic misinterpretation of His words. He said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (John 6:63), and "The flesh is of no help at all" in understanding His words (John 6:63). He equated "eating" His flesh with one who "believes in him" and thereby "has eternal life" (John 3:16,18,36). Peter did not depart on hearing Jesus' words, and said that it was because "we have believed and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:69).
The Bible shows that eating physical objects metaphorically does not always mean destroying them (See Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20). In a positive context, it means ingesting the spiritual reality that God has provided (See Psalm 37:4; Isaiah 55:1; Ezekiel 2:8-9; 1 Peter 2:2-3).
The actual Communion service instituted by Jesus is recorded four times in the New Testament (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-13; 1 Corinthians 11:17-26). The text indicates that Jesus' words are not to be taken literally because "eating" His "flesh" would have cannibalistic overtones to Jews who were strictly forbidden by the Law of Moses to eat blood (Leviticus 17:14). Jesus said, "this is my body" (Gk: ‘soma’), not "this is my flesh" (Gk: ‘sarx’). Logically, if Communion was in mind in John 6, it is more likely that the word "body" would have been used. Nowhere in Scripture is Communion spoken of as eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-22; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).
The communion elements are called "bread" and the "cup" [of wine] or "fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29) after it is prayed over (consecrated) and they were eating it, not the body and blood of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Jesus offered Himself once and for all (Hebrews 7:27; 9:7,26,28; 10:10). His body is not offered over and over again each time Mass is given in the RCC.
Transubstantiation entails worshiping the Eucharist/Communion elements because it is the worship of created things, contrary to the prohibition of eating blood and against idolatry (Leviticus 17:14; Exodus 20:4-5; Romans 1:25).
In Remembrance
"…do this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-25 NIV)
The early Church considered the taking of Communion not as a ritual ceremony but as a holy act and treated it as such. It was at the forefront of every meeting, and the elements were prominently displayed in the front of the church, be it an altar or table. It is vitally important that Christians partake of Communion in contemplative reverence to remember the broken body and shed blood of Jesus because it proclaims His death for the forgiveness of sin that brought reconciliation between humanity and God. When Christians receive the emblems of His body and blood, they partake of the power of God.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV)
The blood is the power of the anointing that breaks every yoke. Taking Communion signifies that they have faith in His blood, the blood that was shed to forgive and save, and are continually being saved from things that can attack physically, mentally, and spiritually.
Whether Christians partake in Communion daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually, they are to "examine" and judge themselves just as King David did.
"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139:23-24 KJV)
The failure of the Corinthian church was due to them not searching their hearts before partaking in Communion. It must not be done in only a few fleeting seconds during service as the elements are being prepared. People must first spend time on their knees before the Lord, seeking His face to search their hearts. Then, when the Lord reveals sin, such as unforgiveness, anger, rebellion, bitterness, fear, worry, anxiety, resentment, pride, envy, etc., in their life, they should acknowledge it, appropriate the blood to it and repent. If they hold something against another person, then they must make it right with them. Reconciliation is the ministry of EVERY Christian (See 2 Corinthians 5:18). If people do not examine themselves BEFORE they take Communion, and sin is present, they will bring God's correction.
"For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:27-32 NIV)
After decades of study, I firmly believe that this is the most significant reason why there is so much sickness and disease in the church. Pride and lack of trust allow the immune system to go haywire. The importance of this can't be overstated. God's chastisement and judgment are by resisting the proud. They are designed to bring the Christian back into the right relationship with Him and are always to restore but never to destroy.
Conclusion
The comments and beliefs of the early church Fathers are not the direct and inspired Word of God, the Bible, and sometimes are completely opposite. The common RCC response to that truth is to ignore and not address them directly and state that ‘God didn't come down and give us a Bible; He came down and gave us a church who gave us the Bible.’ The focus of the discussion then moves to obfuscation and the sophistry of what the Bible ‘means’ based upon what some fallen person said about who, what, where, and when. Being a Berean who studies to “shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth approve themselves unto God” is definitely NOT on the list of RCC works-based memory verses (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).
The RCC's teaching that there was unanimous consent of the early church Fathers supporting its dogmas on the Eucharist and the Mass is not accurate and inconsistent with the Word of God and church History. They are a serious departure from and a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and are simply the result of centuries of historical development that involved a diversity of opinion among the church fathers and later among the theologians of the Middle Ages.
The devastating results of this teaching are spiritually incalculable because it distorts the Gospel, deceives people regarding the nature of salvation, and leads people to believe that by partaking of the Eucharist, they are literally partaking of Christ, receiving eternal life, forgiveness of sins, and are abiding in Christ and He in them because they have supposedly physically ingested him.
The indisputable historical fact is the New Testament makes no mention of the RCC teaching on Communion and transubstantiation, Jesus and His Apostles, nor is there any mention of salvation by grace plus anything such as baptism and works, praying the Rosary, the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary, her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, absolute sinlessness, assumption, being a co-redemptrix and mediatrix, as well as petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the Church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture, which the Bible warns about the danger of following those non-apostolic traditions (Mark 7:7-8,13; Colossians 2:8). These teachings are a different Gospel full of idolatry and doctrines of demons because it is a works-based religious caste system that is confusing at best and most often theologically contradictory, illogical, and intellectually incongruent (Galatians 1:8-12; 1 Timothy 4:1).
Because the RCC believes that 'traditions' and the teachings of fallen human beings are co-equal and even supersede God's Word, then a Catholic cannot honestly and legitimately teach or believe that Jesus is God and the Author of the Bible, which means they are unbelievers who have tampered with its authority by adding or subtracting from it, which is disgraceful and underhanded, and there can be no fellowship between "light with darkness" (Ephesians 4:12-15; 2 Corinthians 14-16 ESV). That is a result of the god of this world having blinded their minds because of what they chose to believe and the choices they make to keep them from seeing the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:1-6 ESV).
The cold and hard truth is that anyone who teaches things that do not align with the Word of God is to be accursed (1 Corinthians 16:22 - see also Matthew 18:15-17).
