Understanding The Eucharist

[Maniel]

I'm having a discussion with my catholic friend. He is trying to persuade me that The Eucharist is true. As the protestant I am I feel like challenging him on that, and would like some of you to comment on some of the issues I have.

Let me go through the scripture and I will include some perspectives on the way:

The catholic defence of The Eucharist comes from John 6:53 "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."

As I see it, it's clearly metaphorical language. In context Jesus just said he is The Bread of Life.

My friend will then recite catholic answers, namely Tim Staples, that people reacted strongly to Jesus saying John 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Tim Staples: If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience seems to have been fully aware of it.

But as I interpret John 6:61-62, Jesus is then saying that the flesh has nothing to do with anything, but the spirit is what gives life. “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see wthe Son of Man xascending to ywhere he was before? 63 zIt is the Spirit who gives life; athe flesh is no help at all. bThe words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So why is it, that Catholics hold unto the dogma that it has to be Jesus' literal flesh? I just see no point or evidence for that in scripture. It seems that they took offence, because Jesus is basicly saying that He is God and has the powers of heaven to cure them by faith in Him.

Jesus also said John 6:35 "whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
So why is it that Jesus has to be sacrificed over and over, when he said that we should never thirst once we believe? Why is it necessary to literally drink his physical blood? He just said his words are spiritual, so I interpret that to say that we drink his blood in a spiritual way, his words, his death on the cross, everything he has done for us. Hebrews 7:27 goes on to say "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, qfirst for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this ronce for all when he offered up himself."

Luke 20:19 “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Here Jesus is saying that we should do it remembrance of him. And how could it be his flesh by then, when he had not ascended to heaven at this point?

There is much more to be said, from both sides, so this is just to open up the discussion. I hope not to offend anybody, I'm just trying to understand. I would love to be catholic personally, I love the high church with all it's buildings and art, church fathers etc. I just can't in good conscience, when there are interpretations that seem clearly wrong to me. Would love to hear your view.

Sincerely, Mathias

 

[GreekOrthodox]

First please go read a legit Catholic source on the Eucharist. They do not believe it is "literally" Jesus's body and blood, where they are chewing on human tissue and human blood. It is that the bread and wine are changed metaphysically into the body and blood of Christ. Second, other denominations believe that the body and the blood of Christ are supernaturally present in the Eucharist, but defined differently than Catholicism. This would include the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches.

Christ is not sacrificed over and over again but rather that His sacrifice is made present in the here and now. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have similar teachings. As for "remembrance", it leads from the Jewish understanding of the Passover. If you have ever been to a Seder, one of the the themes is "we were slaves in Egypt", not "our ancestors were slaves in Egypt". So the Passover is made present in the here and now, not centuries ago. This same theme is referenced in the Eucharist. It is made present through supernatural means.

 

[Maniel]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. By metaphysically, is that like a spiritual symbol of what happens when we receive Jesus as a sacrifice on the cross, his blood that cleanse all sin? Like in a symbolic way, but very real at the same time. Do you know what supernaturally mean in this sense?
As I see it, the Eucharist is a powerful remembrance of what Jesus did on the cross and that belief in him is symbolised by the bread and Him entering our body, his transforming power in us.
So nobody believe that Jesus is sacrificed over and over? It just seem that way at least if one is made to believe that it is Jesus' physical body that is chewed and swallowed. As I seem to understand the Catholic teaching is saying.

 

[Albion]

The catholic defence of The Eucharist comes from John 6:53 "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."

As I see it, it's clearly metaphorical language. In context Jesus just said he is The Bread of Life.

What you say is possible, yes.

My friend will then recite catholic answers, namely Tim Staples, that people reacted strongly to Jesus saying John 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

That's plausible also.

So why is it, that Catholics hold unto the dogma that it has to be Jesus' literal flesh? I just see no point or evidence for that in scripture. It seems that they took offence, because Jesus is basicly saying that He is God and has the powers of heaven to cure them by faith in Him.

For one thing, the Church/the Early Church Fathers spoke of the sacred meal in intimate terms from the early days of Christianity. On the other end of the argument, the evidence for the Eucharist being purely symbolic, seems lacking.

Jesus also said John 6:35 "whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
So why is it that Jesus has to be sacrificed over and over, when he said that we should never thirst once we believe?

That's a different issue and hardly anyone believes this. The Catholic Church itself now denies the idea of a re-sacrificing of Christ.

Why is it necessary to literally drink his physical blood? He just said his words are spiritual, so I interpret that to say that we drink his blood in a spiritual way, his words, his death on the cross, everything he has done for us. Hebrews 7:27 goes on to say "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, qfirst for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this ronce for all when he offered up himself."

Because of the personal connection involved. Like Baptism, Communion uses physical elements in order to relate to our mortal thinking and emotions, and although you made the point earlier that it could all be symbolic, it's hard to conclude that eating and drinking something (including bread and wine) was meant figuratively, judging from all that Christ said at the institution of the Eucharist.

Luke 20:19 “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Here Jesus is saying that we should do it remembrance of him.

Yes, but that comes after the rest of what he said about the meal--the parts you think may be mere symbolism. It would be wrong to conclude that it's ONLY a remembrance, though.

And how could it be his flesh by then, when he had not ascended to heaven at this point?

Because, obviously I'd say, this is a supernatural matter, a mystery, not unlike many other miraculous elements that are part of the Christian religion.

The most compelling argument from both Tradition and Scripture is that the sacrament IS Christ's flesh and blood in some way or other. So, more than mere representationalism but not a literal change.

And we should know also that the belief of the Church from the first century onward was not Transubstantiation (which is the view your friend will defend), but what is called Real Presence. That is to say, it's NOT really the body Christ's "wore" for thirty some years on Earth and you get to eat one of the arms, etc. (!), but you do deal with his actual presence in the Communion elements. Plus also, the bread and wine do not cease to exist in favor of Christ's literal body and blood. That's Transubstantiation and all of that was Medieval thinking from a much later period.

By the way also, approximately half of the Protestant world believes in the Real Presence, so don't fall into the habit of thinking that it's typically Protestant to believe that the Communion elements are strictly bread and wine and only symbolize Christ.

I would love to be catholic personally, I love the high church with all it's buildings and art, church fathers etc. I just can't in good conscience, when there are interpretations that seem clearly wrong to me. Would love to hear your view.

You're Danish and conservative Lutheranism would seem to be a solid choice.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I'm having a discussion with my catholic friend. He is trying to persuade me that The Eucharist is true. As the protestant I am I feel like challenging him on that, and would like some of you to comment on some of the issues I have.

Let me go through the scripture and I will include some perspectives on the way:

The catholic defence of The Eucharist comes from John 6:53 "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."

As I see it, it's clearly metaphorical language. In context Jesus just said he is The Bread of Life.

My friend will then recite catholic answers, namely Tim Staples, that people reacted strongly to Jesus saying John 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Tim Staples: If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience seems to have been fully aware of it.

But as I interpret John 6:61-62, Jesus is then saying that the flesh has nothing to do with anything, but the spirit is what gives life. “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see wthe Son of Man xascending to ywhere he was before? 63 zIt is the Spirit who gives life; athe flesh is no help at all. bThe words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So why is it, that Catholics hold unto the dogma that it has to be Jesus' literal flesh? I just see no point or evidence for that in scripture. It seems that they took offence, because Jesus is basicly saying that He is God and has the powers of heaven to cure them by faith in Him.

Jesus also said John 6:35 "whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
So why is it that Jesus has to be sacrificed over and over, when he said that we should never thirst once we believe? Why is it necessary to literally drink his physical blood? He just said his words are spiritual, so I interpret that to say that we drink his blood in a spiritual way, his words, his death on the cross, everything he has done for us. Hebrews 7:27 goes on to say "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, qfirst for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this ronce for all when he offered up himself."

Luke 20:19 “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Here Jesus is saying that we should do it remembrance of him. And how could it be his flesh by then, when he had not ascended to heaven at this point?

There is much more to be said, from both sides, so this is just to open up the discussion. I hope not to offend anybody, I'm just trying to understand. I would love to be catholic personally, I love the high church with all it's buildings and art, church fathers etc. I just can't in good conscience, when there are interpretations that seem clearly wrong to me. Would love to hear your view.

Sincerely, Mathias

I have no idea what you mean by "literal." First I'd recommend reading this article (which has the same title as your post coincidentally) that explains what we believe the Eucharist is far better than CA. "Physical" has nothing to do with it.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The Eucharist for us is more than just symbolic in the way we understand "symbolic", which is normally stated as the "Real Presence". Now various groups explain it differently, but overall the idea is that we do partake of Christ's Body and Blood in a supernatural way, that cannot be completely explained.

Catholic:
This means that in the Eucharist, Jesus does not sacrifice himself again and again. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit his one eternal sacrifice is made present once again, re-presented, so that we may share in it. Christ does not have to leave where he is in heaven to be with us. Rather, we partake of the heavenly liturgy where Christ eternally intercedes for us and presents his sacrifice to the Father and where the angels and saints constantly glorify God and give thanks for all his gifts:

Orthodox
Of thy Mystic Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant: for I will not speak of thy Mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas; but like the thief will I confess thee: Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom.

Not unto judgment nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body.

Lutheran
The body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament are the one perfect sacrifice
offered to God once and for all on the cross and are now distributed to us in the
Sacrament together with all the blessings and benefits which this sacrifice has won
for us.

Here is a Q&A from the US Catholic Bishop's website:

The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers | USCCB

 

[Gregorikos]

That's a different issue and hardly anyone believes this. The Catholic Church itself now denies the idea of a re-sacrificing of Christ.

Really!? When did the RCC renounce the Council of Trent?

 

[Albion]

Really!? When did the RCC renounce the Council of Trent?

I couldn't put a date on this change without some research, but it's true that the church not longer teaches that. Indeed, it usually says that it never did, although that was previously the teaching. But you know how Purgatory and a lot of other historic Roman Catholic teachings have been axed lately with a little re-wording of the issue, so this is just another of those.

Now what it said is that the priest doesn't re-sacrifice Christ (what the same church used to call "the unbloody sacrifice of the altar") but that it's a mystical, timeless, participation in the one sacrifice of the Cross. So, still a sacrifice, but not a new one.

 

[Dave L]

I'm having a discussion with my catholic friend. He is trying to persuade me that The Eucharist is true. As the protestant I am I feel like challenging him on that, and would like some of you to comment on some of the issues I have.

Let me go through the scripture and I will include some perspectives on the way:

The catholic defence of The Eucharist comes from John 6:53 "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."

As I see it, it's clearly metaphorical language. In context Jesus just said he is The Bread of Life.

My friend will then recite catholic answers, namely Tim Staples, that people reacted strongly to Jesus saying John 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Tim Staples: If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience seems to have been fully aware of it.

But as I interpret John 6:61-62, Jesus is then saying that the flesh has nothing to do with anything, but the spirit is what gives life. “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see wthe Son of Man xascending to ywhere he was before? 63 zIt is the Spirit who gives life; athe flesh is no help at all. bThe words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So why is it, that Catholics hold unto the dogma that it has to be Jesus' literal flesh? I just see no point or evidence for that in scripture. It seems that they took offence, because Jesus is basicly saying that He is God and has the powers of heaven to cure them by faith in Him.

Jesus also said John 6:35 "whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
So why is it that Jesus has to be sacrificed over and over, when he said that we should never thirst once we believe? Why is it necessary to literally drink his physical blood? He just said his words are spiritual, so I interpret that to say that we drink his blood in a spiritual way, his words, his death on the cross, everything he has done for us. Hebrews 7:27 goes on to say "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, qfirst for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this ronce for all when he offered up himself."

Luke 20:19 “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Here Jesus is saying that we should do it remembrance of him. And how could it be his flesh by then, when he had not ascended to heaven at this point?

There is much more to be said, from both sides, so this is just to open up the discussion. I hope not to offend anybody, I'm just trying to understand. I would love to be catholic personally, I love the high church with all it's buildings and art, church fathers etc. I just can't in good conscience, when there are interpretations that seem clearly wrong to me. Would love to hear your view.

Sincerely, Mathias

If it is literal, why didn't Jesus have them bite off a piece of his fingers during the last supper? Can they prove their claim in a lab?

 

[Albion]

If it is literal, why didn't Jesus have them bite off a piece of his fingers during the last supper?

That's easily answered, no matter where any of us comes down on the bigger issue.

If he'd done that, he would have limited his sacrament--and the remembrance element involved--to that particular meal.

The sacrament was obviously meant for followers of all time to come, and Christ said as much when he told those seated with him on that occasion that it would have a certain meaning "as oft as" they observed it.

 

[Gregorikos]

I couldn't put a date on this change without some research, but it's true that the church not longer teaches that. Indeed, it usually says that it never did, although that was previously the teaching. But you know how Purgatory and a lot of other historic Roman Catholic teachings have been axed lately with a little re-wording of the issue, so this is just another of those.

Now what it said is that the priest doesn't re-sacrifice Christ (what the same church used to call "the unbloody sacrifice of the altar") but that it's a mystical, timeless, participation in the one sacrifice of the Cross. So, still a sacrifice, but not a new one.

I mean..... The Council of Trent said-

1. "If anyone shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema." (10)
2. "If anyone shall say that in these words, `This do in remembrance of Me,' Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."
3. "If anyone shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead fro sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."
4. "If anyone shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass - let him be accursed."

Vatican 2 affirmed that. And here is a current RCC page-

The Mass is a sacrifice for sin

 

[Albion]

It looks like that material is saying essentially the same thing as I explained in my post. No?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Here is a very nice summary by an Anglican of the various views of the Lord's Supper

Survey: What’s going on in Holy Communion?

 

[Gregorikos]

It looks like that material is saying essentially the same thing as I explained in my post. No?

The way I read you, you were saying, "The Catholic Church itself now denies the idea of a re-sacrificing of Christ." No?

 

[Albion]

The way I read you, you were saying, "The Catholic Church itself now denies the idea of a re-sacrificing of Christ." No?

Right. RE-sacrificing. That's to perform a new sacrifice of Christ on the Altar. The RCC now denies this.

What it retains is a belief that the priest offers sacrifice but it's (allegedly) the same one that occurred on the Cross.

 

[tz620q]

I mean..... The Council of Trent said-

1. "If anyone shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema." (10)
2. "If anyone shall say that in these words, `This do in remembrance of Me,' Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."
3. "If anyone shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead fro sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."
4. "If anyone shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass - let him be accursed."

Vatican 2 affirmed that. And here is a current RCC page-

The Mass is a sacrifice for sin

The article that you linked says this, " 4. The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366)"

So that seems to relate the same position as others have shown you, where the one time sacrifice at Calvary is made present to us at this time.

 

[Albion]

The article that you linked says this, " 4. The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366)"

So that seems to relate the same position as others have shown you, where the one time sacrifice at Calvary is made present to us at this time.

Not quite. The belief is that the sacrifice of the Cross is re-presented to the Father. That's the nature of a religious sacrifice, as it was among the Jews before Christ. It's not that it makes Calvary's sacrifice more apparent to us at that moment.

 

[HTacianas]

I'm having a discussion with my catholic friend. He is trying to persuade me that The Eucharist is true. As the protestant I am I feel like challenging him on that, and would like some of you to comment on some of the issues I have.

Let me go through the scripture and I will include some perspectives on the way:

The catholic defence of The Eucharist comes from John 6:53 "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."

As I see it, it's clearly metaphorical language. In context Jesus just said he is The Bread of Life.

My friend will then recite catholic answers, namely Tim Staples, that people reacted strongly to Jesus saying John 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

Tim Staples: If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience seems to have been fully aware of it.

But as I interpret John 6:61-62, Jesus is then saying that the flesh has nothing to do with anything, but the spirit is what gives life. “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see wthe Son of Man xascending to ywhere he was before? 63 zIt is the Spirit who gives life; athe flesh is no help at all. bThe words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So why is it, that Catholics hold unto the dogma that it has to be Jesus' literal flesh? I just see no point or evidence for that in scripture. It seems that they took offence, because Jesus is basicly saying that He is God and has the powers of heaven to cure them by faith in Him.

Jesus also said John 6:35 "whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
So why is it that Jesus has to be sacrificed over and over, when he said that we should never thirst once we believe? Why is it necessary to literally drink his physical blood? He just said his words are spiritual, so I interpret that to say that we drink his blood in a spiritual way, his words, his death on the cross, everything he has done for us. Hebrews 7:27 goes on to say "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, qfirst for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this ronce for all when he offered up himself."

Luke 20:19 “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Here Jesus is saying that we should do it remembrance of him. And how could it be his flesh by then, when he had not ascended to heaven at this point?

There is much more to be said, from both sides, so this is just to open up the discussion. I hope not to offend anybody, I'm just trying to understand. I would love to be catholic personally, I love the high church with all it's buildings and art, church fathers etc. I just can't in good conscience, when there are interpretations that seem clearly wrong to me. Would love to hear your view.

Sincerely, Mathias

See Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm having a discussion with my catholic friend. He is trying to persuade me that The Eucharist is true. As the protestant I am I feel like challenging him on that, and would like some of you to comment on some of the issues I have.

You are right Mathias - there are some issues to be considered.

1. In Matt 16 we see a clear blatant example of disciples "not getting" the "bread" symbolism.

5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The notion that the disciples never got mixed up on symbolism is not a long-lived argument.​

2. Jesus tells them not to get sidetracked by the symbolism -- in John 6 - saying not to focus on literal flesh and blood - but rather on "the WORD" that became flesh and dwelt among us. The WORD of Christ not the "flesh tissue" of Christ.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.

Notice how in John 6 He says you have to eat His flesh to have life... then points out that eating literal flesh is pointless - rather it is the WORD of the one that in chapter 1 of that book is "the WORD that became flesh".​

3. Jesus does not say in John 6 "Some day in the future - at the last supper you WILL have to eat my flesh" - but rather in John 6 Jesus said it was ALREADY the case that they have to eat his flesh to have life. This only works with His vs 63 that He is talking about His WORDs having LIFE.

4. Though Jesus' words were a bit confusing - Peter shows in his response that he gets "the main point" of Christ's message in John 6.

66 As a result of this many of His disciples left, and would no longer walk with Him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life.

So the focus on "the WORDS" of Christ, His "teaching" as the meaning behind the symbol of bread - is found not just in John 6 - but also in Matt 16 where the bread represents the teaching of the Jews in that case.​

5. The Eucharist is a claim to have the "powers" to "confect the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ. Powers that the priest does not "lose" even if that priest is excommunicated as a heretic according to the Roman Catholic Church.

==================


Paragraph 1374 of the CCC:
Quote:
“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 the sacraments tend."201 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.”

“Only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist. Because of the reality of transubstantiation, reference to the Eucharistic Species as “bread and wine” is wrong. They are properly called the Body and Blood of Christ. “


Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.L. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994, Our Sunday Visitor.

============================

Paragraph 1374 of the CCC:
Quote:
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 the sacraments tend."201 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.

 

[BobRyan]

“You sometimes hear that the reason the Church recognizes the validity of an excommunicated priest’s Mass, and his continuing power to forgive sin, is the salvation of the dying in cases of necessity. But the deeper reason is the mark of the Holy Orders, along with Baptism and Confirmation, puts on the soul.

Of course “Mark on the soul” is just a figure of speech to indicate the difference between the baptized and the nonbaptized , the confirmed and the nonconfirmed, the ordained and the nonordained. Once the status of a soul is established by any of the three sacraments, it cannot be changed by any human power so as to be like it was before the reception of these sacraments.

The apostate priest does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist or forgive sins through the sacrament of Penance. He does, by his apostasy, lose the power to do these things licitly, without sin.”

Catholic Digest – Jan 1995, pg 126


==============================


St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized [Ref. Unknown] (C. 373 AD):


"Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so as long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus is His Body confected."

====================================
The “change of substance ” of bread into the Body of Christ and wine into the Blood of Christ at the Consecration of the Mass. Although this fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church was held by the faithful since apostolic days,

the term “transubstantiation” was adopted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, to describe the Eucharistic mystery. This was reinforced by the Council of Trent (1545-63), which spoke of “a wonderful and singular conversion” of the Eucharistic elements.

Only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist. Because of the reality of transubstantiation, reference to the Eucharistic Species as “bread and wine” is wrong. They are properly called the Body and Blood of Christ.

Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.L. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994, Our Sunday Visitor.