By Andrew R. Duckworth
It is regrettable that in the year of our Lord 2026, entire Christian churches deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, what many would call The Lord’s Supper, as it is called Biblically. What is even more regrettable is the amount of Catholics who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I have been in a conversation before where a fellow Catholic, in their understanding, was explaining the Eucharist to a Protestant and actually said “well, it’s symbolic of the body and blood, right?” Wrong, and I said so, charitably, within this conversation. What you might believe about the Eucharist individually, if you come outside of the Catholic Church, is something that you’ll have to wrestle with. It is something that I certainly, before coming back to Christ’s Church, had to wrestle with. Is it symbolic? Is Jesus speaking literally? Is it all figurative? These are important questions and I would say they should not be approached lightly. However, if you are brought up in the Catholic faith, if you are confirmed in the Catholic faith, if you wish to give clarity on Catholic understanding, one thing is absolutely clear: the Eucharist is NOT symbolic. The consecrated bread and wine are not just stand-in symbols for Christ’s Body and Blood. No. The consecrated bread and wine are no longer bread and wine—through transubstantiation, the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. What is also important is that this idea didn’t just originate out of thin air and it didn’t develop in the Middle Ages. It is ordained by scripture itself.
Before continuing, I should state that while I am going to list scripture that promotes this understanding, my primary audience here is not the Protestant. If you are Protestant, it is my hope that perhaps you receive some better or fuller understanding of this. However, I’ve noticed that those within the Church itself need the reminder that Jesus is present in the holy Eucharist. So, much of this writing will focus on a reminder to those beliefs that are so central to our faith.
I should state first that I was never confirmed into the Church, something that I am hoping to fulfill within the next year or sooner. So, it is sad that such a reminder should come from one who is not yet in full standing in the Church. Yet, this is something that is very important to me. As Flannery O’Connor once said in her conversation with an atheist, “if it’s just a symbol to hell with it.” I teach symbols, metaphorical, and figurative language to students every day. So, I also understand how symbols work and how they do NOT work.
So, a question that comes to mind for me is how on Earth do my fellow Catholics get this part confused? it is the centerpiece of the Holy Mass, the moment in which the entirety of the Mass is built around, the moment when the bread and wine, works of human hands, become truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, the moment when we are united to the Body of Christ. And, it is important to recognize that it is not just the Catholic Church that believes this. The Orthodox traditions believe this as well, as do some Protestant traditions (there are notable differences, of course, but the purpose of this writing is not to discuss various differences, but instead to reiterate an unshakeable position of the Church. To believe the Eucharist to be symbolic is to cease being Catholic).
So, perhaps one should only look to the words Jesus himself spoke in John 6:51-58. Many will look at these words and still consider it largely symbolic. However, a close look at the situation involved and the context simply do not permit this to be the case. In this passage, Jesus is preaching to a large following and his Jewish followers would have had an extreme aversion to anything akin to what is being told to them. Jesus is declaring here that those who eat His flesh and drink His blood will have eternal life. This would have been a disgusting sentiment to the Jews, one that, according to the Law, would have brought condemnation from God. Jesus, being Jewish himself and, as Christians believe, the fulfillment of the Law, would have been very much aware of this aversion. Yet, he spoke these words anyway. He even goes a step further in telling them that if they do not eat of the flesh and drink of the blood that they would have no life in them. This would have enraged those at the time. And, in fact, it did. Many turned away as he said that his flesh is true food and his blood true drink. In doubling down, it is written in the Greek trógó, which is a much stronger word than simply “eat.” It, instead, presents imagery of eating in an animalistic nature, to gnaw or chew.
I should state that this account, in itself, is not necessarily proof that the Eucharist is not symbolic. After all, as many Protestants will reply, Jesus often used non-literal language in conveying Truth. And, they’re correct in this assessment. However, it is one instance where Jesus does not either then convey what he actually means or gives another manner of teaching through figurative language. So, in this understanding, it at least warrants a number of questions. After all, at the Lord’s Supper, Christ does not say “This is my Body, which I hope you now realize is a symbol for what will happen soon, or for the Church, or for something else.” No, he says “This is my Body which will be given up for you. Do this in memory of me.” We notice then that the language surrounding this very thing, the Eucharist, does not change. It is still stark, still insistent.
The thing that would stress that the “Body” and “Blood” are NOT symbolic actually comes from the apostles, namely St. Paul. On reception of the Blessed Sacrament (the consecrated Eucharist) unworthily, St. Paul declares something that is head-spinning, to say the least. In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, St. Paul declares that those who partake in the Eucharist in an unworthy manner “will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord.” And, for those who do not discern the Body and Blood and partake, St. Paul says they will be eating and drinking condemnation/damnation onto themselves.
I previously noted that I teach symbolic and figurative language for a living. I understand the power of symbols. Symbols do contain power, just not that sort of power. A symbol is used to express deeper meaning than they do at face value. In other words, they’re figurative, noting something beyond the word itself. For an example, the handkerchief in Shakespeare’s masterpiece Othello is a powerful symbol that represents fidelity. Yet, if you never recognize that symbol, you still understand the story, you still recognize what is happening in the play (never mind that the language can be a bit taxing to overcome). In poetry, admittedly, symbols can be a bit more difficult. But a sound examination of the context clues can lead you to an adequate understanding.
However, we are not discussing works of Shakespeare. Instead, we are discussing words handed down to us from the apostles. In other words, there is a certain gravity to these words as opposed to a nice piece of poetry one might appreciate. Still yet, even in the scriptures, symbols only have the power of conveying something beyond face value. But if this is a symbol, and it is not, then it is the only symbol in history that demands you be able to discern it, and if accepted without proper discernment condemns or damns you. When Jesus describes this portion, remember, it is always the “body” or “blood,” and a focus on us consuming it. And then, when Paul discusses it, if it is accepted in an unworthy manner, it is damning.
But, should we still have questions, we also have how the early church treated the Eucharist. St. Ignatius of Antioch had rather scorching words regarding not partaking in the Eucharist, particularly a certain group of heretics at the time: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” St. Ignatius died in 107 AD. He was one of the first bishops of the early church. If it is just a symbol, someone never told St. Ignatius.
I will not, under any circumstance, suggest that the language and teachings are not difficult. But just as Christ tells the rich man that if he wishes to follow Him he must sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor, we are instructed not to go the way of the rich man who, because it was such a hard reality, turned away and went home. We must not turn away from Christ because there are things we do not fully understand. Do I understand how transubstantiation works? No. But I believe it. The early church believed it, the apostles instructed it, Christ Himself ordained it. Who am I to deny it?
The centerpiece of the Holy Mass is the consuming of the Eucharist, when after the Eucharist is consecrated Jesus is united to the believer through consuming the Body and Blood of Christ. With something so central to the Mass, I still have to wonder how many of my fellow Catholics have come to the error that the Eucharist is somehow symbolic. Flannery O’Connor’s statement was perhaps a bit too vulgar for me to echo. But perhaps, put another way, if the Eucharist is purely symbolic, then what is the point of the Holy Mass?
Poetry and Essays of Andrew Ryan Duckworth 