Christ in the Eucharist

Protestant 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. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

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.

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).

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. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

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. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

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; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "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. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? 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 said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct 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. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

For Fundamentalist 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, 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? Hardly.

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’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

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 Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." 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 (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

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 Cor. 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 Cor. 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.

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? 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).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

Whatever else might be said, 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.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, 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 Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But 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.

- Jesus Himself couldn’t have meant what He said in John 6 literally, as He didn’t give His apostles of His actual body and blood, although He was and is God Incarnate, and was there physically at the Last Supper, and after His resurrection.

- This examination of John 6 severely misrepresents the whole chapter. First, it says Protestants misinterpret “the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel,” but then says it will only look at the second half of John 6. Following that, it says, “John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum,” when 6:30 is not only not the beginning of the colloquy, but there are a series of events that bring about the dialogue, and by beginning at 6:30, all that led up to it, which Jesus continually brings up, is lost. John 6:30 is not the beginning, but the middle of the matter.

- Because the context is omitted, and some vital details are also distorted, the heart of the matter here in John 6 is almost completely lost in this Catholic interpretation, and a vastly different meaning is given to this snippet of the dialogue.

What John 6 is about is that even after being prepared for the prophecied Messiah, and then actually witnessing His miracles, many of the Messiah’s own people, the Jews, didn’t believe on Him. Any interpretation of John 6 that ignores this matter, as this interpretation does, is not holding to what’s actually there.

- As Christians we know that the Old Covenant was a preparation for the New, and a shadow of the Heavenly. It all points to Christ, who fulfilled the Old Testament. The Jews of the time of the Incarnation were awaiting the promised Messiah, and this is the primary concern of John 6, and a primary concern throughout all of John, and all the Gospels, and the entire New Testament, as well. Any study of them clearly shows that.

Looking at some of the Gospel of John outside of John 6, the Messiah issue is continually there. John 1:11 says, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” And later in John 1, several of the men who would become Jesus’ disciples rejoice that they have found the Messiah. In John 2, the miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine causes His disciples to believe on Him (miracles serving to demonstrate He was the Messiah), and after He cleanses the temple, some Jews are already asking Him for a sign. John 3 is about the need to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and to be born again. In John 4, Jesus reveals Himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman at the well and a multitude of other Samaritans that she tells about Him (the Samaritans, with a partial Jewish ancestry, also know of the prophecied Messiah). In John 5, the Jewish authorities begin to persecute Jesus after He heals a man on the Sabbath. In John 7, when Jesus appears and preaches in Jerusalem during the Feast of the Tabernacles, there is a great debate among the people on whether or not He is the Messiah. In John 8, after some Jews had brought an adulterous woman to Jesus to see if he would say to stone her, but he had instead convicted them of their own sin, Jesus then argues with some Pharisees, who accuse Him of bearing witness of Himself and of having a devil. Jesus tells them that He is the one that He has told them all along that He is - the Messiah - and that unless they believe that He is, they will die in their sins. In John 9, after Jesus heals a blind man, it’s revealed that the Pharisees have decreed that anyone confessing that Jesus is the Christ will be put out of the synagogue. In John 10, the people again debate if Jesus is the Messiah or not, and some Jews again question Jesus about it.

“24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.”

In John 5:36, Jesus tells the Jewish authorities, “But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.” And in John 14:11, Jesus also tells the Twelve, “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.”

John, and the other three Gospels as well, also refer to a prophecy of Isaiah concerning the Jews.

“37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” (John 12)

In Matthew 13:13-14, Mark 4:12 and Luke 8:10, Jesus Himself mentions the Isaiah prophecy about hearing in order to explain to His disciples why He only speaks to the multitudes in parables that they don’t understand, saying it hasn’t been given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.

What the New Testament teaches us on this matter is that it was revealed to the Apostles, Jews themselves, that the Jews overall did not receive their Messiah when He came to them, and this rejection was a part of God’s plan to take the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ to the rest of the world.

- What specifically, then, about John 6 has been ignored here?

John 6 starts with a great multitude following Jesus because “they had saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.” Jesus decides to feed them and asks the disciples how it can be done, but they don’t know. This was to test them since He Himself “knew what he would do.” He then multiplies the loaves and fishes of a boy in the crowd and feeds them all. At that point, some of the crowd declare Him to be the prophecied Prophet and are about to forcefully seize Him and make Him king, but He, knowing their thoughts, escapes from them. The disciples end up going off in a boat for Capernaum themselves, but Jesus goes up a mountain, and later in the night He walks on the sea to join them in their boat.

The following the day, the multitude is puzzled to see that apparently Jesus went to Capernaum without a boat, and go there in search of Him. Then upon finding Him, they ask Him when He had gotten there, apparently to try to figure out how He had. He ignores their question, though, and instead says to them:

“Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”

Right here we see that Jesus, knowing everything about everyone, including what was in their hearts, knew they didn’t seek Him out of love for God, but out of their “cares of this world.”

And note how He puts this, saying that they hadn’t sought Him because they “saw the miracles,” as they should have. As miracles were to be a sign of the Messiah, then these people, knowing that, were knowingly rejecting Him, for they had already seen the miracles and yet had not believed to the point of acknowledging they were in the Messiah’s presence and responding in their hearts with repentance towards God.

But despite their unbelief, Jesus speaks to correct them, only to be met with more unbelief.

“27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

- Now all of that, John 6:1-29, this interpretation simply omits, including Jesus’ response in John 6:29 that they should believe on Him. This interpretation implicitly claims that the whole matter begins at 6:30, which clearly isn’t the case, and gives the false impression that the Jews here simply hadn’t been given any reason to believe in Jesus and wanted some sign from Him, which would have to “top” what Moses did for them to believe.

“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?”

But again, the actual context here is the question of the Jews believing in their prophecied Messiah or not, and Jesus had already done many miracles (including miraculously feeding the very ones asking Him for a sign at this point) and revealed Himself to be the Messiah. Here (and even later on, as mentioned above), many of the Jews kept responding to Him with unbelief, despite the evidence of His words and miracles. The Pharisees will even accept He has done miracles but still be determined to kill Him.

In 6:30-58, Jesus continues to tell the Jews that salvation is through believing on Him, but their unbelief persists, and eventually in the course of the dialogue He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35 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.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood have the effect of turning away those in the multitude who tried to make Him king and have followed Him to Capernaum, but have refused to accept Him as their Messiah despite His words of authority and miracles. His words also offend many of His disciples.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Again, it was not truly believing on Jesus that is the issue here, and Jesus’ words on eating His flesh and drinking His blood reveal what He has already known, that the following multitude and many of His disciples didn’t truly believe, and cause many to forsake Him.

Then after seeing many of His disciples leave Him, Jesus asks His disciples if they will do the same.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

So, answering for the twelve disciples, Peter says they will not leave Jesus because He has the words of eternal life, and they believe and know that He is the Messiah. And again, Jesus, knowing everything, knows that one of the twelve, Judas, also truly doesn’t believe in Him and will betray Him. Here, too, the matter is belief in Jesus as the Messiah versus unbelief in Him, not the matter of what He means by the words eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

What Jesus was certainly referring to by saying that He would give His flesh for the life of the world was His sacrificial death to atone for man’s sin, and this also has to do with the Jews’ rejection of Him as their Messiah. The Jews had begun to divide the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah into two kinds, with one kind being about the “Triumphant King,” the Messiah, Son of David, and the other being about the “Suffering Servant,” the Messiah, Son of Joseph. Some thought there might even be two Messiahs. Since so many Jews wanted to be delivered from Roman rule and re-establish their own nation ruled by themselves, they rejected the “Suffering Servant” prophecies and didn’t think that Jesus fulfilled the ones about the “Triumphant King,” since His kingdom wasn’t of this world. And they did not accept that the Messiah would die for the sins of others.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians)

► Preface:

The Catholic doctrine of the “Real Presence” — though apparently originally an Anglican term (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence) and who not share the same eucharistic theology as Catholics — refers (as explained by RC sources) to her foundational sacramental cornerstone, that such words as “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me,” (Lk. 22:19; cf. Mt. 26:26; Mk.14:22;1Co. 11:24) means the literal consumption of the body and blood of Christ, who is “present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place,” having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) Thus the statement, “The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) “Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)

Meaning more technically that through the power given to her ordained priests, ordinary bread and wine are “transubstantiated” so that “the substance of the bread and wine is changed during the Eucharistic consecration into the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains, with the "accidents" [a philosophical term referring to appearance] of the bread and wine replacing the accidents of Christ’s body: his tissues, bones, and cells. Thus "While Christ’s body is in heaven according to his natural mode of existence, it can simultaneously be present in the Eucharist according to a supernatural mode of existence." (http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol89iss3/pages/article7.html)

And by which consumption believers thereby obtain life in themselves. And that this is a propitiatory sacrifice for sins: “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” (Council of Trent, The Twenty-Second Session) “As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.” (CCC 1414)

This “sacrament” is taught as being "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the font of life” the "medicine of immortality," "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves.

Therefore even more than for lesser practices, then for us to believer it we must expect and require that such a cardinal doctrine and preeminent and essential practice would be a practice often manifestly seen recorded in the life of the church and its pastoral epistles and activities, and its doctrine at least basically expounded. And it also requires that this and the alternative metaphorical interpretation be examined for conformity in the light of the immediate, broader and entire context of all of Scripture, especially since at face value it would be requiring kosher Jews to disobey the strict injunction against eating blood, which was required of Gentile converts as well. (Lv. 17:10.11; Acts 15:20; 21:25) ^

► 1Cor. 10,11

Rather than the practice of this principal and prevalent practice being manifest as such in the life and epistles of the NT church, it is only manifestly described in one epistle, that of 1Co. 10 and 11. Some Roman Catholic apologist invoke the former as supporting transubstantiation in saying, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)

However, as examination of the next chapter will reveal, this refers to believers showing fellowship with Christ in His death through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning:

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

And how would they have fellowship with devils? Not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, but not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.

The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ, and that what one has liberty to eat or do is restricted by how it will affect others. Thus “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32)

And which is the context in the next chapter, in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but charges them with not actually doing so because they were supposedly eating this communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)

Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ who purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, for it, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body” as a body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for them while acting contrary to it, thus they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)

Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating, versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.

While silently consuming a piece of bread and a sip of wine as is done today may not be that of ignoring others and their needs, yet it hardly corresponds in form to the communal feast of charity referred to here, and misses how we are to show the Lord's death by this supper, and instead often results in seeing the Lord's death as being for individuals and abstract from the corporate body.

And to “take communion” by yourself (unseen in Scripture) is in contradiction to its description and manifest meaning, while the Catholic focus upon the elements which are consumed, which usually sees interaction with others during as an intrusion, and is consistent with hastening to leave the service afterward, misses the meaning even more.

While the superficial observance of this ordinance may not result in manifest chastening unto death, yet “not discerning the Lord's body” as described may result in many being “weak and sickly among you.” And I must repent of being selfish sometimes myself. ^

► Gospels and John 6.

These can be taken here together in the interest of brevity (which term is relative with me), as both require examination in the light of figurative language for eating and drinking in the whole Bible, and of the use by John in particular, and how each interpretation conflates with Scripture.

• The uniqueness of the Catholic interpretation.

The Catholic interpretation is actually semiliteralist if strictly restricted to the “plain words” hermeneutic, as Catholics do not really believe they literally consume the actual flesh and blood of Christ as if He literally gave them a piece of His finger. What they consume does not literally look like or taste like human flesh, nor bleed, or suffer corruption. Nor is it restricted from being in many locations at the same time.

In addition, Catholics do not take the Lord literally when He said to “drink this cup,” for as you cannot drink a cup (though they could allow it to be transubstantiated), they correctly understand the cup to represent what it contains. But while endocannibalism and drinking blood is forbidden, they refuse to allow the bread to represent the Lord's mangled sacrificial body and the wine as His shed blood.

Thus the theory of transubstantiation holds that the substance of bread and wine are changed but not the appearance and tangible aspects. Which is a unique miracle, as unlike the incarnation, in which Christ Jesus was/is both fully human and fully God, transubstantiation denies that the consecrated species are fully bread and wine and also fully the Body and Blood of Christ. Some RCs even talk as if after consecration by the priest then the bread and wine remain bread and wine only in appearance.

Moreover, the Lord's human body saw no corruption, while the transubstantiated consecrated bread and wine are no longer the same after digestion.

And in every other miracle which the Lord did that changed something material then there was an obvious tangible change — water really become wine which only existed in that location — versus a change of substance while the appearances remained the same, and so the body of Christ could be sitting at a table before them while being in the stomachs of the disciples.

Thus Catholicism had to devise a metaphysical explanation to justify this claim. ^

► Metaphorical versus literal language

The Catholic interpretation of both the words of the Lord's Supper and the discourse on the bread of life in John 6 depend upon the language being literalistic, and presumes consistent with the rest of Scripture as such, versus such language being consistent with metaphorical language. Thus RCs typically chide evangelicals for not being consistent with their tendency toward taking Scripture literally.

However, taking historical accounts literally which most modern RC scholarship relegates to being fables or folk tales is not contrary to recognizing different literary genres, while what is novel in Scripture is transubstantiation, while was is absent is even the Lord's supper as the preeminent principal prevalent practice that Rome propagates it as being.

And what is quite prevalent in Scripture is the use of figurative language for eating and drinking, and in which Catholics can be the ones charged with being inconsistent. For consider that David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

When David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

When Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

And when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

And when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed. ^

► Conformity to Scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.

That the Lord was giving the disciples a new command to eat His actual body and blood would be very radical, as not only is the practice of eating human flesh something that is proscribed in principle, (Gn. 9:1-6) and only shown in a negative sense, (Lv. 26:29; Dt. 28:53; 2Ki. 6:28,29; Lam. 2:20; Jer. 19:9; Ezek. 5:10) but so is blood, (Lv. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10,11,14; Ezek. 33:25) and the theory of transubstantiation by which Catholicism makes this possible is not actually taught in Scripture.

And it was not pagans whom the Lord was speaking to but kosher Jews, as Peter showed he was in Acts 10, and as he showed there and in other places, he in particular was not only to simply submit to something he found objectionable, and to suppose they would do so in the face of a radical new requirement is absurd. That they were well familiar with the metaphorical use of eating and drinking is far more reasonable.

Catholics must therefore presume that Jn. 6 is about the Lord's Supper, and is to be taken literalistically, and which settled the matter for the apostles.

However, that creates a larger problem than it can hope to solve, as for the Catholic Jn. 6 is not simply a command to take part in the Lord's Supper in remembrance of the Lord, and which is not actually mentioned at all there, but it is an absolute “verily verily” imperative that one consume the body and blood of Christ in order to obtain spiritual life.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)

And which, if literal, means we must see the Lord's Supper being preached as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life. And which, if literal, excludes all those who reject the literalistic interpretation as unScriptural. Since modern Rome clearly affirms properly baptized Protestants as children of God and (separated) brethren who have the Holy Spirit, then those Catholics who post Jn. 6:53,54 as the unequivocal imperative that it is have a contradiction with their own church, unless they retreat into some equivocation to allow some way of salvation for those who reject transubstantiation. But which equivocation this absolute “verily verily” imperative does not allow.

And which literal understanding is one which the apostles and NT church manifestly did not get, nor the rest of Scripture. For nowhere did the apostles peach the Lord's Supper as the or a means to obtain spiritual life, as instead the preached that this as obtained by believing the gospel of grace.

Peter preached “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43) resulting in the Gentiles believing and being born again.

Referring to this, Peter stated, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

And after which souls live by Christ by obeying His words. For His words are spirit, and life. (Jn. 6:63)

And nowhere else in Scripture was literally eating anything physically the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life. Therefore in addition to a novel miracle explained by a novel theory, we have a novel yet essential means of obtaining spiritual life, and which excludes all those who cannot believe this unScriptural teaching.

And rather than souls in Jn 6 rightly understanding the Lord's words as literal but rejecting them, instead they represent another example of carnally minded souls who are presented in John (especially) who do not seek the meaning of the Lord's enigmatic words. For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually. ^

► Absence of the sacerdotal Eucharistic priesthood.

Since Catholic Eucharistic doctrine holds "that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious," (Trent, 22^nd Session, cp. 2) therefore she has created a separate class of believers distinctively titled "hiereus”="priests" who were to engage in this uniquely sacerdotal act as their primary ordained function.

One sanctioned Catholic work even states, “The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974

But which separate class of believers distinctively titled "hiereus” is utterly absent in the NT, as NT pastors (besides apostles) are only called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) and which denotes the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) and nowhere does the Holy Spirit ever call any NT pastor “hiereus” (which etymologically became “priest” from old English "preost"), which is the distinctive word only used for priests, Jewish or pagan.

Instead, the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church is that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) for all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and NT pastors are never shown or described as offering up the elements of the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice for sin.

However, Catholicism has made NT pastors into a sacerdotal priesthood due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ἱερεύς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

Yet NT pastors are never even described as dispensing bread as part of their ordained function in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Acts 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and to build them up, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9; 20:32) ^

► Endocannibalism

Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural and the Scriptural gospel.

Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

There are some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper. ^
The following was originally written some years ago, but is rather verbose, and may need siome corrections.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.