The Real Presence

Catholicism vs. Protestantism: The Claims

The Roman Catholic Church has consistently held fast to the belief in the Real Presence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

- The Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 1374

However the Protestants, in their desperate fight against Catholicism, have a very different view. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian) states:

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

- WCF 29.6

   And so, as apparent, the Protestants attack the Catholics on their doctrine of the Real Presence. They call the sacrament repugnant to both Scripture and common sense. Basically, they visciously slander the Catholic Church.   

     The issue of the Eucharist and the Real Presence has been a constant debate for years. For most Protestants, it seems to ridiculous to be true. To most Catholics, it seems too Biblical to be false. And so the ancient query continually makes itself known-- Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ?

The Testimony of Tradition

   It is important to acknowledge the writings of the Early Church on this subject. The last books of the Bible, Revelation, was written somewhere between AD 70 and AD 120. Ignatius of Antioch, a founding Father of the Church, was active in teaching doctrine in the year 110. We therefore must realize that although uninspired, Ignatius lived at a very close time to Christ, and his records should be Spiritual guides if not Absolute Truth. They are also some of the earliest Christian writings we have on record. Here is a quotation from Ignatius of Antioch concerning the Real Presence:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

   As obvious, Ignatius of Antioch firmly believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. He boldy declares that the Eucharist "is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" and that "they who deny the gift of God [the Eucharist] are perishing in their disputes". Justin Martyr, yet another faithful Father and founder of the Church, teaches the doctrine of the Real Presence as well. The following quotation, from approximately AD 151, shows the magnitude of his belief in the real presence:

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

    The above quotation, even when made from the primitive Christian Church, shows in rather astonishing detail the doctrine of Transsubstantiation. Martyr includes his orthodox opinion that the bread and wine of the Eucharist "is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus". The Real Presence is expressed again, and again in detailed description, by Hippolytus in the year 217.

"'And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table' [Prov. 9:1] . . . refers to His [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

    Once again, the Early Church Father speaks of the Real Presence, making sure even to include the teaching that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially. Cyril Of Jerusalem sums up the Eucharist's real presence and the doctrine of Transsubstantiation in the following way:

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

    It has been shown that the Early Church Fathers were practically unanimous in what they believed. And they sided undoubtedly with the Catholic Church, holding the doctrine of the Real Presence.

Testimony of the Holy Scriptures

John 6:30 begins a discussion which 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 "murmured at him, because he said, 'I am the bread which came down from heaven.' They said, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, "I have come down from heaven"'?" (John 6:41-42).

To underscore his point, Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized it: "'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. Jesus told them, "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 thought he was speaking metaphorically, 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 who were used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, according to what their human judgment would tell them, but according to the power of God's Spirit: "It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:53; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12-14). Then Jesus eyed them and asked a simple question: "Does this offend you?" He made it clear that his hearers had to conform themselves to his teachings, not the other way around. His hearers may have been bothered by this teaching--even to the

But he knew some did not believe, including the one who was to betray him. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "'But there are some of you that do not believe'" . . . 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.

The common argument against the Real Presence portrayed explicitly in John is that when Christ speaks of eating and drinking His body and blood, He is referring to the Spiritual food that can be obtained from Christ. The "proof" behind this is that Christ often used these kind of metaphors-- "I am the door" or "I am the true vine." The problem with this argument is that, first of all, the context, as previously examined, is absolutely against it. Furthermore, Christ specifically spoke against it. He said "My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink." (John 6:55) This takes the rest of the text FAR beyond any practical symbolism. "My flesh is truly food..."-- You cannot get any more obvious than that. It is black and white. Moreover, 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 bland and means "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

The Importance of the Real Presence

There are many people who dare to claim that the Eucharist is not that important. They say that there are far more important things to study or be concerned with. But the importance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is undeniable.

Paul affirms the Real Presence in 1 Corinthians 10:16 which reads, "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?" It is only practical to conclude from this passage that when we have communion, we do not eat symbols, but we eat the body and blood of Christ.

Paul delivers the full impact of the importance of the Real Presence in 1 Corinthains 11:27 and 29, which reads "Therefore whoever eats this bread in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord... For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." The magnitude of this verse is magnificently obvious. If you eat and drink the sody and blood of Christ in an unworthy manner, you are guilty of the Lord's body Itself!! How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul's words make sense only if the bread and wine are actually the real body and blood of Christ.

The Lord Delivers

As if to make the Real Presence increasingly clear, the Lord has created numerous Eucharistic miracles by which we can witness the solemn actuality of the Real Presence. The following is a personal testimony of an eyewitness account of a Eucharistic miracle:

On Mercy Sunday, April 10, 1994, a visiting priest, Father Robert J. Rooney was celebrating morning Mass in Yardville, New Jersey. As he elevated the Host and spoke the words of the consecration, blood flowed out of the Eucharist; this blood is easily seen in three of the four quadrants of the consecrated Eucharist. The altar boys and the reader also saw this event and commented on the strange color of the host. The events following this phenomenon have caused much misinformation to be transmitted about this occurrence and I wish to take this opportunity to share the facts surrounding this event.

In defense of our Lord, our Lady, and this fine priest, I promise you the reader, the courtesy of communicating only the facts that I have personal knowledge of without addition of exaggeration.

Since Fr. Rooney was quite understandably shaken by the bleeding Host, he put it on the dish and consumed one of the other consecrated Hosts at Mass. After Mass, Fr. Rooney showed the local parish priest the host and they decided to keep it in the tabernacle until the Bishop could look at It and decide what to do next. Fr Rooney also telephoned this writer and relayed his entire experience that Sunday afternoon just a few short hours after the occurrence.

The Host did, in fact, bleed two times and the blood could be seen to settle up in layers on both the front and back sides of the Eucharist. The Bishop decided not to investigate it and Fr. Rooney gave the Host to Fr Valenta his Spiritual director. Fr Valenta allowed this writer to photograph for documentation purposes and then allowed two medical doctors, experienced in blood analysis, to perform a non-invasive microscopic examination to determine if there was a scientific explanation to this phenomenon. ( Note: invasive contact with a consecrated Host may only be done with a bishops permission.)

The two doctors stated, There is no scientific explanation, the red material came from within the Host and it has the microscopic characteristics of human blood; the Church must make the determination as to any miracle. Of no minor importance is the fact that Father Rooney was the spiritual director of Joe Januszkiewicz, the alleged visionary of Malboro N.J. During 2 years of verbal exchanges between the alleged visionary and Fr. Rooney, requests were made each month to have our Lady produce a physical sign so that people might have proof that she was coming to this place. In April 1992, she said, My Son would take care of it; the sign would be very very clear. In May 1993, she told Joe that the sign would be soon and Fr. Rooney would be the first to see it. On another occasion she scolded Fr. Rooney for his insistence of a sign and told him to be patient regarding the sign.

After the news of the Eucharistic phenomenon got out, both Fr. Rooney and Fr. Valenta became the target of much gossip and character assassination because of their sincere efforts to have this Eucharist given a proper investigation.

On the feast of the Body of Christ, June 6, 1994, our Lady appeared to Fr. Rooney in his dining room at 9:40 PM (the time frame of the alleged Malboro apparition just a few miles away.) During this one and only visual encounter with our Lady, Fr. Rooney asked her if it was his blood on the Eucharist; she said, No, this was a gift from my Son, your spiritual director has it and he will do everything. You do nothing.

After receiving the medical report Fr. Valenta delivered the Eucharist to Bishop Reiss of the Trenton diocese. Fr. Rooney died six weeks later on the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, July 16, 1994. I believe these priests to be extremely conscientious, loyal to the Pope, and concecrated to our Blessed Mother. My life has been blessed by knowing them and sharing their suffering as a result of defending Jesus truly present body, blood, soul, and divinity in this Eucharist.

I personally took this picture and heard this testimony with my own ears. Rumors that the blood shown on this Eucharist is a photographic trick or that the blood came from Fr. Rooney in any way are incorrect. I make no judgment on the events of Malboro which still occur privately each month nor of the bishops actions; if this photograph does anything, I pray that it increases your reverence for the Eucharist. At Malboro, our Lady asks us to pray, fully participate in the sacraments and support our priests. Good advice to be sure!

Most respectfully in Christ,

Robert Pladek

177 Ballantine Road Middletown, NJ. 07748, USA.

 

 

Conclusive Evidence

With the un-ignorable abundance of evidence, we must conclude that the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Christ. The Scriptures affirm it, the Early Church affirms it, miracles affirm it, and the Catholic Church affirms it. It cannot be doubted.