Dear Matt:

When anti-Catholics accuse us of cannibalism they usually do not literally believe we are cannibals. Rather, they use this term for its shock value to indicate how ridiculous they think Catholic Doctrine is on the Eucharist.

The accusation, however, bespeaks a typical ignorance of the language and of the Bible that is common among anti-Catholics.

To begin with cannibalism is the eating of dead human flesh of a dead human being. Jesus Christ is not dead and we are not eating His human flesh, Catholics receive the LIVING and RESURRECTED Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity of Christ.

As one person, I believe from EWTN's Q&A, explains, "The Church teaches that Jesus is 'sacramentally present' in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine. It doesn't use the term "physically present" precisely to avoid the notion that we are receiving a hand or foot or some other part of His body. When we receive Holy Communion we are aware of our union with Him in a physical way because of the physical appearances of bread and wine."

A Sacrament is a physical manifestation of an invisible reality that confers a grace. The Doctrine of Transsubtantiation is that the accidents of the bread and wine (this means those aspects of bread and wine which are accidental or non-essential like the color, weight, shape) do not change; they remain the same. Thus, the appearances of the bread and wine look, feel, taste like bread and wine. The alcohol in the wine remains alcohol and effects our bodies in the way that alcohol does.

When the priest convects the Sacrament, what happens is a miracle. While the "accidents" remain the same, the substance or essence of the bread and wine changes.

As one apologist explains: "Catholics do not believe that they are eating Christ’s human flesh in its natural form. There is a change of substance and nothing else in the Host. The appearance and qualities of bread are not changed at all. Christ gives us His Body in a Divine and supernatural way, not in a natural way, for His Presence is not natural but Sacramental. The Catholic Doctrine does not suppose such folly of eating Christ’s Body in a merely natural sense as we eat ordinary flesh."

Jesus is no longer in a natural body, but a glorified body, a resurrected body, that is transformed yet real that He gives to us Sacramentally. This is not just a symbol of Christ or a spiritual presense as Protestants believe, but a Real Presence sacramentallyTransubstantiationpresence. He is truly present in a miraculous and mysterious way in his Body and Blood (Sacramentally, not naturally).

This teaching is hard to understand. It was hard for the Jews in Jesus' time to understand.

But, as an old fundamentalist saying goes, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

The Bible does specifically teach this. Jesus in John chapter 6 repeated over and over that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. The language here is NOT symbolic. In fact the Greek word used for "eat" means to "munch". That is hardly symbolic language.

In addition, everywhere else in the Gospels if the people misunderstood what Jesus was saying, he would correct their misunderstanding. He does not do that here. He indicates no where that he was speaking in parables or symbolically and the disciples who were listening to him certainly thought he was speaking literally.

Many disciples left Jesus because they could not take this teaching. Jesus let them go. He did not yell after them, "Hey, I was only speaking symbolically." No. In fact Jesus held his ground and not only let the disciples leave him, but he turned to his beloved inner circle, the Apostles, and asked if they would leave him too. He would not compromise this teaching. St. Peter responded, "Lord, where would be go, for you have the words of Eternal Life."

It was John 6 and the CLEAR literal teaching of Jesus, along with Matthew 16 on the Peter appointed the first Pope, that brought me to convert from a Baptist preacher to a Catholic.

If there are any doubts about this interpretation of John 6, we only need to look at the Church Fathers.

I have already given you the link to an article that lists quotes from the Church Fathers: Real Presence.

Bottomline is to focus on the clear teaching of the Bible based upon a proper exegesis that realizes that there is NO evidence for symbolic language in John 6 and that the early Church believed in the Real Presence.

So-called "Bible Christians" pride themselves on interpreting the Bible literally. Odd that their exegesis style goes out the window when it comes to John 6 (and also Matthew 16).

God bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary