The Bread of Life Eucharist Foundation is a movement to help Catholics strengthen their faith & understanding of the doctrine of The Real Presence, The Mass and promote the cult of adoration of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Q: What is the Eucharist? Who is the Eucharist?

Ans: As far as the nature of the Eucharist is concerned, it is “the source and summit of the Christian life”. 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.". As far as the identity of the Eucharist is concerned, He is the second person of the Most Holy Trinity where his divinity and humanity are veiled under the appearances of bread and wine.

Q: Why it is called the Eucharist?

Ans: The term “Eucharist” originates from the Greek verb, eucharistēsas, meaning 'to give thanks' or 'thanksgiving'. The cognates, eucharistein (Cf. Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24) and eulogein (Cf. Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22) recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - God's works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. 

'The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Hence, Eucharist means first of all "thanksgiving."' (CCC 1360).

Q: When and why the Eucharist was instituted?

Ans: "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us." (CCC 1323).

Q: What is the Biblical basis of the Eucharist?

Ans: Please refer to above section 'Where is the Eucharist in the Bible?'.

Q: Why does Jesus give himself to us as food and drink?

Ans: Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1). In Hebrew 'Bethlehem' means 'house of bread'. So, Jesus was born in the 'house of bread' and becomes bread of life (John 6:35) by the mystery of incarnation (John 1:14). Just like material food brings material nourishment to the body, spiritual food (Eucharist) brings spiritual nourishment to the body. Jesus becomes food for humanity because he loves us.

By eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, we become united to the person of Christ through his humanity and divinity. '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." (Jn 6:56). 

Our mortal and corruptible natures are transformed by being joined to the source of life.

Q: Is the Eucharist a symbol, a sign, a figure or power (virtue)?

Ans: The Catholic Church holds that the Eucharist is both 'a symbol, a sign, a figure, power (virtue)' but also 'truly, really, and substantially Jesus's body, blood, soul and divinity, hence the entire Christ'. 

• The Eucharist is 'the sign of unity' (CCC 1323), 
• The Eucharist is 'the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being' (CCC 1325). 

However, 

• The Eucharist cannot be and is not 'merely a sign' , 
• The Eucharist is not merely a 'symbol' or 'power (virtue) 

Jesus says, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” [John 6:55]. “... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;” [John 6:53-56]. 

'Christ’s real presence is not only as a sign, or a figure, or a power (virtue) but in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ'. (Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon I, October 11, 1551).

The transformed bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ and are not merely symbols or signs. When Christ said “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” the bread and wine are transubstantiated. Though the appearances (accidents) of the bread and wine remain unchanged to our human faculties, they are really, truly, and substantially the body and blood along with soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body'; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body' but ‘my body,' and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood' but ‘my blood'" ( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]). 

Q: Jesus said "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12), "I am the door" (John 10:9), "I am the vine" (John 15:1); and Christians have interpreted these passages as metaphors and symbols, so why should we take his words "This is my body...This is my blood" (Luke 22:19) quite literally and not 'just metaphorically or symbolically'?

Ans: Jesus's words, "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12), "I am the door" (John 10:9), "I am the vine" (John 15:1), etc were understood and interpreted by the Apostles and the entirety of Christendom as 'Figures of speech', 'Metaphorical' and 'Figurative' because of its context. The context always considers the choice of words, language used, satire, historical background, time, culture and customs of the place & period.

• "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12): The context dictates, that Jesus is the light of the world who guides us through the darkness of sin, darkness of life, and our struggle. Because Jesus said, 'Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but have the light of life', the literal meaning of the verse 'I am the light of the world' has to be understood as a metaphor. Here Jesus speaks of the light of His Truth, the light of His Word, the light of eternal Life. Those who perceive the true Light will never walk in spiritual darkness.
• "I am the door" (John 10:9): In John 10:7, Jesus refers to himself as the door of the sheep, which is sometimes translated as the gate of the sheep. In fact, the whole of chapter John 10:1-21 uses these metaphors of a door or gate, of gaining access to something else, and the idea of Jesus as a good shepherd watching over us. The best way to understand this is to reflect on the verse following that: “I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved.”. As Rev. Billy Graham would say "Every house and building has at least one entrance. Every nation has points of entry. The kingdom of God also has an entrance—only one—and it is Jesus Christ.". So this verse cannot be literalistically interpreted as Jesus being a door with hinges.
• "I am the vine" (John 15:1): Once again, the language of John 15 is of a metaphor and a figure of speech that is used to make a comparison between Jesus as the Vine, the Father as the Gardener and the disciples as the branches. 'I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser ... I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.'. 

Throughout the Gospels, we observe Jesus's authority as the divine teacher (John 6:45). Being the divine teacher he demonstrates his pedagogical responsibility to his listeners to correct and explain his audience when they wrongly take him literally. Similarly, when people rightly take him literally, Jesus confirms their understanding.

When people wrongly take Him literally, Jesus corrects and explains: Below are just few examples:

• John 3:3-5: Nicodemus wrongly takes Jesus's words literally and says 'How can a man be born when he is old?' and Jesus corrects and explains him, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
• John 11:11-14: When Jesus said that Lazarus was asleep and he will go to awake him out of sleep, his disciples wrongly takes Jesus's words literally and say "Lord if he has fallen asleep, he will recover". Jesus corrects and explain them, "Lazarus is dead.".
• Matthew 16:5-12: Jesus says, "Beaware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees.". Once again, his disciples think Jesus is speaking literalistically about the leaven of the bread. Again, Jesus corrects them and explains that He is not talking about the leaven of the bread. "Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees.".
• John 4:31-24: Jesus says, "I have food to eat of which you do not know.". His disciples wrongly takes Jesus's words literalistically and says, "Could someone have brought him food?". Jesus then corrects and explains them, "My food...is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.".

When people rightly take Him literally, Jesus confirms and repeats: Below are just few examples:

• Matthew 9:2-6 (c.f. Mark 2-1-2): ...When Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”. Now notice that the scribes take Jesus's words literally and 'they said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”.' Because 'Who can forgive sins but God alone'. Now Jesus emphatically confirms and repeats their understanding and says, 'For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
• John 8:56-59: 'Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad. The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”. Now Jesus emphatically confirms and repeats their understanding and says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.'.
• John 6:51-58: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to 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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”. Notice, when the Jews object to Jesus saying that 'the bread He will give is His flesh', does Jesus corrects and explains their misunderstanding or confirms and repeats? Jesus emphatically confirms and repeats Himself, six times in a row, confirming that He intends to be understood literally.

Q: What is wrong by saying Jesus is only speaking figuratively when he says we must eat His body and drink His blood?

Ans: Again, Jesus couldn't be speaking figuratively, because the expression to "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" already had a specific figurative meaning. In the Aramaic language of our Lord, to figuratively "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to devour, persecute, assault, and destroy him. This Hebrew and Semitic expression is found in many scripture passages:

Verses showing "EATING FLESH" and "DRINKING BLOOD" as a figure of speech for devouring, persecution, assault, and destruction: 

• Psalm 27:2: When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, My adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell. [NASB]
• Isaiah 9:18-20: They slice off what is on the right hand but still are hungry, And they eat what is on the left hand but they are not satisfied; Each of them eats the flesh of his own arm.
• Isaiah 49:26: I will feed your oppressors with their own flesh, And they will become drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine;
• Micha 3:3: Who eat the flesh of my people, Strip off their skin from them, Break their bones And chop them up as for the pot And as meat in a kettle.
• 2 Samuel 23:15-17: ...Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” Therefore he would not drink it.
• Revelation 17:6: And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly.
• Revelation 17:16: And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.    

Now if Jesus is speaking only figuratively about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then what He really means is “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you devour, persecute, assault, and destroy the Son of man, you have no life in you; he who devours, persecutes, assaults, and destroys me has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.... He who devours, persecutes, assaults, and destroys me abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who devours, persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will live because of me.". This make no-sense of the passage! 

Q: May be people have misunderstood Jesus's Eucharistic claims in John 6 and Luke 22:19, etc?

Ans: No. John Duncan (Colloquia Peripatetica p. 109) and C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity in 1952), formulated an argument known as the "trilemma argument" to address Jesus Divine claims. Paraphrasing the argument, it goes like this: Jesus as the Son of God can be understood as one of three, he is either a lunatic, a liar or indeed Lord.

I use this trilemma argument to positively argue that Jesus's Eucharistic claim in John 6, and its fulfillment "This is my body... This is my blood" (Luke 22:19) cannot be understood or interpreted as 'figure of speech', but only leaves us with three possible options: 

Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or He was indeed the Eucharist Lord He claimed to be.

When it comes to Jesus's Eucharistic claim in John 6, and its fulfillment "This is my body... This is my blood" (Luke 22:19) , we can apply the trilemma as follows:

1. Jesus's claims in John 6:53-54: “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" makes him no less than a lunatic person because of the background and Jewish context of Leviticus 17. Every Jew would know that“For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off". (Leviticus 17:14). So it was an abomination to even think of consuming blood , much less human blood. Hence, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52) makes a powerful question which deserve a powerful answer. To some of his audience and his disciples, Jesus has to be a lunatic, out of his mind, mentally unstable or delusional. Because "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it ?" (John 6:60) and hence, "After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him." (John 6:66). This is not a language of 'figure of speech' and hence maybe Jesus is a lunatic?
2. If Jesus' statement, "This is my body," really means "This is not my body" then it was a deliberate lie, then He would have been intentionally deceiving His followers. A person is a liar when he/she replaces the auxiliary verb (ex: is,  am, are, was, etc) with its negated auxiliary verb (ex: is not, am not, are'nt, was'nt, etc) or vice versa. So, when Jesus says "This is my body", when in reality he means "This is not my body", he can be rightly called a liar. Especially a person who claims his teaching is as if "they shall all be taught by God"(John 6:45). Moreover, when he had a perfect opportunity to correct his claims, he keeps on repeating his affirmative claims six times in a row confirming that He intends to be understood literally (John 6:52-58). This is not a language of 'figure of speech' and Jesus does seem to be a liar?
3. The third option proposed by the trilemma is that Jesus' Eucharistic claims in John 6 and his words 'This is is my body... This is my blood' (Luke 22:19) are indeed true and should be taken literally —that is to say, He is indeed the Eucharistic Lord. Given, the fact that [i] Jesus speaks literally (not figuratively), [ii] his audience understands and takes him literally (not figuratively), [iii] his audience gets bogged by his claims within the background of Leviticus 17, and [iv]Jesus never stops his disciples from leaving him or neither corrects their misunderstanding. So we are left only with the claim of the Eucharistic Lord, and contemplate on 'to whom shall we go?' Jesus has the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that He is the Eucharistic Lord. [My personal derivation from John 6:67-69]   

In summary, when applying the trilemma to Jesus's Eucharistic claim in John 6, and its fulfillment "This is my body... This is my blood" (Luke 22:19) we find that the language Jesus uses is not 'figure of speech' and that Jesus cannot be a lunatic or a liar. Therefore, his Apostles, the early Church Fathers and the Councils affirmed Jesus claims of being the Eucharistic Lord and came to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.

Q: What is the doctrine of 'The Real Presence'?

Ans: The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that 'in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ'. (Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon I, October 11, 1551).

There are four key terms in this solemn definition: "truly", "really", "substantially", and "the whole Christ". What do we understand by these terms?

1. To say Christ is "truly" present in the sacrament is to deny that he is 'only symbolically' present in the Eucharist. The Council Fathers used the term "truly" in response to the Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingly and his followers, who simply denied the Real Presence and claimed that the bread and wine are 'mere symbols' of the Body and Blood of Christ. 
2. To say Christ is "really" present in the sacrament is to deny that he is 'only figuratively' or 'only metaphorically' present in the Eucharist. The Council Fathers used the term "really" in response to the Protestant Reformers who saw the Eucharist as a metaphor or figure of speech. In 1577, Christopher Rasperger, in his book (Ducentæ verborum, ‘Hoc est corpus meum’ interpretationes, Ingolstadt) counted the number of meanings given to Christ's words at the Last Supper: "This is My Body, this is My Blood." He found among the Protestant scholars more than two hundred interpretations except the one which says Christ is "really" present in the Eucharist as understood by the Catholic Church.
3. To say Christ is "substantially" present in the sacrament is to deny that 'he is present merely by the exercise of His power in the Eucharist'. The Council Fathers used the term "substantially" in response to the Protestant Reformer John Calvin and his followers,  who rejected the "substantial" presence of the Body and Blood of Christ and taught a presence of "power", that is, through the Eucharist a power proceeds from the glorified Body of Christ in heaven and is conferred on the faithful. 
4. The Holy Eucharist is "the whole Christ.". Because Christ is a Divine Person with two natures, viz Human Nature and Divine Nature, hypo-statically united; which consequently means that in the Holy Eucharist, Christ is present in His divinity as God and in His humanity (signified by the body, blood and soul) as man.

The Real Presence in the Eucharist is absolutely unique. Christ is not present everywhere as the God-Man with the wholeness of His divinity and humanity; but only in the Eucharist. His divinity and humanity are both veiled in the Holy Sacrament. In the Eucharist, Christ is present in the fullness of His being.

Q: How does the bread & wine become the body, blood, soul & divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Ans: Because, the phenomenon of the bread and wine becoming the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord is a mystery, the "How" cannot be adequately explained or comprehended. By the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood along with his soul and divinity, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.   Therefore, 'Because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion (transformation) is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion (transformation) is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.' (Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Chp 4, October 11, 1551).

Q: Is it not true that the word 'Transubstantiation' is a byproduct of Aristotelian philosophy? 

Ans: The earliest known use of the term transubstantiation is by Peter Damiani (1072 AD) in his Expos. can. Missae (published by Angelo Mai in “Script. Vet. Nova Coll.” VI. 215), and then in the sermons of Hildebert, archbishop of Tours (d. 1134); the verb transsubstantiare first in Stephanus, Bishop of Autun (1113–1129 AD), Tract. de Sacr. Altaris, c. 14 (“panem, quem accepi, in corpus meum transsubstantiavi”), and then officially in the fourth Lateran Council, 1215 AD.

Q: How do we know that it is possible to change one substance into another? Isn't the doctrine of transubstantiation irrational? 

Ans: We know that it is possible to change one substance into another, because of evidences found in Bible and from what we have observed during Hiroshima & Nagasaki Atomic Bombings.

Evidence from Biblical source:

1. Aaron’s Miraculous Rod becoming a serpent (Exodus 7:8-13). The whole substance of the rod was completely changed (transformed) into the whole substance of the serpent.
2. God changed water into blood during the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7:20). The whole substance of the water was completely changed (transformed) into the whole substance of the blood.
3. Jesus changed water into wine at the Wedding at Cana (John 2:7-9). The whole substance of the water was completely changed (transformed) into the whole substance of the wine.

It is important to note, these changes are not exactly the same as the changes that take place in the Holy Eucharist, for in these changes the appearance (accidents) also is changed, but in the Holy Eucharist only the substance is changed while the appearance (accidents) remains the same.

Evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings:

History weeps to witness the innocent lives of the Japanese people who were severely maimed by the radioactive substances that emanated from the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These radioactive substances would not only cause severe abnormality and illness for generations to come but also to the food they would consume. Dr. Terufumi Sasaki, working for the Japan Red Cross Hospital outside Hiroshima, recalls the difficulties of caring for victims and of getting food, but he did not realize food itself was contaminated by deadly radiation. (Dr Terufumi Sasaki, cited in Robert Jungk's Children of the Ashes, p. 178). Dr. Terufumi was one of the first to observe, document, and attempt to treat "atomic bomb sickness," now known as acute radiation syndrome.

Now the very reason Dr. Terufumi and others like him were unable to realize that the food itself was contaminated by the deadly ration was because, these deadly radiations caused the whole substance of the food (ex:  millets, bread, fruits, etc) to completely change (transformed) into the whole radioactive contaminated substance (poison) without the change in the appearances (accidents) of the food. This phenomenon of the complete change (transformation) in the whole substance of the food to the whole substance of the poison while still retaining the appearances (accidents) of food, can be thought to be very similar to, and can be refereed to as the phenomenon of trans-substantiation (transformation or change in substance). 

So the phenomenon in general and the doctrine of 'Transubstantiation' in particular should not be irrational or impossible to us because there are natural and super-natural explanations to apprehend it.

Q: Is is not true that Pope Gelasius I (496 AD) rejected the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Ans: Here is what Pope Gelasius I wrote: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” 

The background of this observation is to refute the monophysite's Incarnation thesis that the body of Christ is changed into the divine essence in virtue of the glorification (resurrection-ascension) and by absorption of His divinity. Monophysite heresy claimed that Jesus had only divine nature rather than human and divine. This Christological heresy proposed that Jesus had only divine nature by the virtue of glorification (resurrection-ascension) during which His human nature ceased by absorption of His divinity. To prove their claims, the monophysite's started drawing a strict parallel between the Eucharistic sanctification and the resurrection-ascension of the Jesus. They claimed:

"Just as the symbols are one thing before the invocation (epiclesis) of the priest, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing, so the body of the Lord is changed after the ascension into a divine substance". (Theodoret, Eransites, Dialogue 2 (Ettlinger 152.9-12).

Now in response to the Eucharistic parallel drawn by the Monophysite's, Pope Gelasius I would also use the same theology of the Eucharist to refute their claims. His final goal would be to prove the hypo-static union of Christ and that Jesus is divine person with two natures viz. Human and Divine. Essentially for Pope Gelasius I, the Human nature of Jesus will not cease or be absorbed or 'become another thing' into His divine nature. To prove his point, he starts to explain:

a] that the sacrament of the Eucharist is 'divine thing' and when we receive it we are made partakers of 'divine-nature'. 

b] Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. 

c] And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” 

Q: What causes the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ along with his soul and divinity?

Ans: By the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood along with his soul and divinity, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.  

Q: Does this change of bread and wine into the body and blood along with his soul and divinity of Christ continue to be made in the Church?

Ans: This change of bread and wine into the body and blood along with his soul and divinity of Christ continues to be made in the Church by Jesus Christ through the ministry of His priests, which Christ instituted and commanded to his disciples during the Last Supper. (Luke 22:14-20)

Q: When did Christ give His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood along with his soul and divinity?

Ans: Christ instituted the New Covenant priesthood and bestowed the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood along with soul and divinity when He said to the Apostles, "...Do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)."

Q: What do the words "Do this in remembrance of me" really mean?

Ans: The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father  The words "...Do this in remembrance of me" 

This memorial aspect is not simply a passive process but one by which the Christian can actually enter into the Paschal mystery 

does not mean a passive remembrance, but rather an active participation : Do what I, Christ, am doing at My last supper, namely, changing the substance of bread and wine into the substance of My body and blood; and do it in remembrance of Me.

Q: What is the earliest historical evidence of the Eucharist being a sacrifice?

Ans: Apart from the Biblical texts, the 'Didache (did-a-key)', or 'The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', authored around 80-90 AD is an earliest historical evidence of the Eucharist (aka Breaking of the Bread) being a Sacrifice. 

'Gather together each Sunday (Rev 1:10, Acts 20:7, Acts 20:11),  break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins (1 John 1:9), that your sacrifice may be pure. And let no man, having a disagreement with his brother, join you until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. (Mat. 5:23). For it was this sacrifice that was spoken of by the Lord: “In every place and at every time offer me a pure sacrifice; (Mal. 1:11) ... for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. (Mal. 1:14)”' - The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations, known as the Didache.

Q: Did Martin Luther, the father of Protestant Reformation believed in the 'The Real Presence'?

Ans: Yes. However, the doctrine of 'The Real Presence' and transubstantiation as taught and understood by the Catholic Church was not held by Martin Luther. It was heavily criticized as an Aristotelian "pseudophilosophy” imported into Christian teaching. In the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a matter of much controversy. 

Martin Luther held that “It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist.” 

In his 'On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (published on 6 October 1520)' Luther wrote:

"Therefore, it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand “bread” to mean “the form, or accidents of bread”, and “wine” to mean “the form, or accidents of wine”. Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning. Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation – certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea – until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.".

In his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, he wrote:

'Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, “This is my body”, even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word “this” indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a “sacramental union”, because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.'

What Luther thus called a “sacramental union” is often erroneously called “consubstantiation” by non-Lutherans. In On the Babylonian Captivity, Luther upheld belief in the Real Presence of Jesus and, in his 1523 treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament, defended adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Q: Why does the Church render the cult of adoration of Jesus in the Eucharist? Is it not idolatry?

Ans: Because of the doctrine of 'The Real Presence', it follows that:

“Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it.” – St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9.

'All the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on this account, that it was instituted by Christ, the Lord, in order to be received: for we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father, when introducing him into the world, says; And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi falling down, adored; who, in fine, as the Scripture testifies, was adored by the apostles in Galilee.' (Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Chp 5, October 11, 1551).

'If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema.' (Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon VI, October 11, 1551).

Q: Who was the first person in history to publicly deny the doctrine of 'The Real Presence'?

Ans: The first Christian writer to truly deny the essence of the doctrine of 'The Real Presence in the Eucharist' as held by the Catholic Church was Ratramnus. In response to refute the claims made by a Catholic Monk Paschasius Radbertus in the book called 'Concerning Christ’s Body and Blood' (831 AD), Ratramnus wrote a counter book with similar title 'Concerning Christ’s Body and Blood ' to refute the claims made by Radbertus. Radbertus had asserted the Catholic position that the elements taken during the Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper) are the same as the physical body of Christ as He appeared on earth. However, Ratramnus refuted this idea that the bread and wine become the actual, physical body and blood of Christ. He denied that it is same Christ who was born of Mary, suffered, died, was buried, ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. Ratramnus maintained that the elements of the sacrament are a figure and not really the Body and Blood of historical Jesus. 

Later, Ratramnus's view would be further promulgated by Berengar of Tours in the 11th century. Berengarius held that Christ was present in the Eucharist “metaphorically” and “symbolically” and that, “bread must remain.”. Berangarius's views were rejected at the Council of Vercelli (1050). Later, the Lateran Synod of 1059 AD condemned Ratramnus. Fortunately, Berangar recanted heresy in 1079 AD. However, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, Berengarius is “the first deviser of this heresy,” (ST IIIa, q.75, a.1). This indicates that no one denied the Eucharist for the first 1,000 years of Christian history. Finally, Radbertus’s doctrine was formally introduced and accepted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD, and transubstantiation became official Catholic dogma.

The next challenger to publicly deny the doctrine of 'The Real Presence' came along 1381 AD by a Catholic priest named John Wycliffe. The storm center of John Wycliffe’s quarrel with the Catholic Church was his doctrine of the Eucharist and transubstantiation. In his Confessio or public statement in the Oxford schools on 10 May 1381, his opinion that the presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was figurative, ‘sacramental’, or in some sense, to anyone not acquainted with the terms of his own mental world, less than real. The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings, effectively both excommunicating him retroactively and making him an early forerunner of Protestantism. 

The next challenger was during the Protestant era. It was not Martin Luther but Ulrich Zwingli, who Luther himself challenged over the real presence. A famous story recounts Luther carving “This is my body” into the table between himself and Zwingli to make his point! Zwingli became the theological forerunner of the Anabaptist movement – the first large-scale movement to deny the reality of the sacraments. So bizarre was this position that the Anabaptists were violently persecuted as heretics. . . by Protestants! 

Later to refute the teachings of the Reformers, on Oct 11, 1551 The Council of Trent was convoked which affirmed the Doctrine of The Real Presence and transubstantiation. During that time Christopher Rasperger, in his book Ducentæ verborum, ‘Hoc est corpus meum’ interpretationes (Ingolstadt, 1577) counted the number of meanings and interpretations given to Christ's words at the Last Supper: "This is My Body, this is My Blood." He found among the Protestant scholars more than two hundred interpretations except the one which says Christ is "really" present in the Eucharist as understood by the Catholic Church.

Q: Is there a Biblical basis to the Miracle of transubstantiation?

Ans: "Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him ... When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." - Luke 24:13-35 

Q: Once we receive the Holy Communion, what are the fruits of the Eucharist?

Ans: There are various fruits that we receive in the Eucharist which allows us to orient ourselves to Christ. These includes, but are not limited to:

1. Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. Jesus says, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." (Jn 6:57).
2. What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life that it nourishes the soul.
3. Holy Communion separates us from sin and preserves us from future mortal sins. Because the Holy Communion presupposes the sacrament of reconciliation, where our sins are forgiven, the Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.
4. As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.
5. The unity of the Mystical Body. St. Paul says, "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? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"
6. The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:
7. The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, "O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!"