Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -Transubstantiation is the belief that, during the mass, the elements (i.e. bread and wine) are changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They are to be literally consumed by all faithful Roman Catholics. There is said to be a change in the substance, but not in the appearance, of the bread and wine. This transformation occurs at the elevation of the elements by a priest. The center of the mass is the eucharistic sacrifice, which is called a bloodless "re-presentation" of Christ's death. The most common biblical references cited to substantiate Roman Catholic eucharistic theology are the instance of the Lord's Supper and Bread of Life Discourse.

• There Is No Evidence That Christ Intended His Words To Be Understood In A Woodenly Literal Sense:

          -There are no implications in the biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper that the apostles believed the elements to literally be changed into the body and blood of Christ. Nor are the consecrated elements ever worshiped as God in the New Testament. Jesus presented bread and wine to his disciples, stating that they were His body and blood. Yet, He sat there with them, whole and unblemished. Obviously, Christ's words were metaphorical, emphasizing a symbolic act rather than a literal transformation.

• After The Institution Of The Lord's Supper, Both The Elements Were Still Called Bread And Wine:

          -Jesus Christ spoke figuratively of His blood as being the "fruit of the vine," even after transubstantiation was supposed to occur (Matthew 26:28-29). The Apostle Paul mentions the Lord's Supper and still refers to the element of bread as bread and the element of wine as wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Further, no one clarified that the teaching on communion was to be understood literally.

• The Mass Violates Old Testament Prohibitions Against Drinking Blood:

          -The Law of Moses consistently forbade the consumption of blood (Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 17:10–14; Deuteronomy 12:23). Blood was sacred, representing life itself, and was reserved for God alone. Against this backdrop, Christ’s words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood must be understood in light of the Law’s unchanging holiness. The New Covenant was not inaugurated until His blood was shed on the cross (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:15–16). Any interpretation that suggests literal consumption prior to the cross would place Christ in violation of the very Law He came to fulfill, undermining His mission of atonement. The consistency of God’s commands makes clear that figurative meaning is the only way His teaching harmonizes with divine holiness.

• The Mass Reduces The Glory Of God To A Physical Likeness:

          -Isaiah 42:8 declares that God will not share His glory with another. The transformation of bread and wine into a supposed divine essence assigns glory to created elements, which Scripture warns against. Deuteronomy 4:15–16 cautions against crafting tangible forms of the divine, and Isaiah 40:18 reminds us that no image can compare to God. To attribute divinity to physical matter blurs the distinction between Creator and creation, reducing God’s majesty to a likeness that Scripture explicitly forbids. The uniqueness of God’s glory is safeguarded only when worship remains directed to Him alone, unmediated by physical representations.

• There Is No Remission Of Sins Without The Shedding Of Blood (Hebrews 9:22):

          -Christ's atonement is propitiation for our sins. His blood was shed on the cross. That is what is required in order for the wrath of God to be turned away from us. The idea of a bloodless atonement sacrifice would have been unintelligible to Jewish ears in Jesus' day. The context of Hebrews 9:22 allows for no new economy of sacrifices for sin like that of the Levitical system. In fact, it explicitly denies that such a category exists.

• Jesus Christ's Body Was Shed On The Cross Once For All, Not On A Continuous Basis:

          -The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus Christ made atonement for our sin once and for all during these last days (Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10-18). His act was done a single time for eternity. That means His work is not ongoing or continuing to be offered as the Roman Catholic Church claims.

• The Kingdom Of God Does Not Consist Of Food And Drink, Which Contradicts The Emphasis Of Eating The Eucharist To Receive Divine Grace:

          -Rome elevates the eucharist as the means by which Christians sustain spiritual life, calling it the summit of communion with God. Yet the Apostle Paul speaks plainly: “The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17). The blessings of the kingdom flow from God’s grace, not from repeated acts of consumption. If salvation truly depended on the continual eating of Christ’s body, Paul’s teaching would have been the perfect place to affirm it. Instead, he categorically dismisses food and drink as defining features of the kingdom. His words leave no room for a system that ties divine grace to ritual eating, but rather point believers to the Spirit’s work as the true source of life.

• Exegetical Comments On Eating Christ's Flesh And Drinking His Blood:

          -Jesus oftentimes spoke to the crowds using parables (Matthew 13:10-11; 34; Mark 4:11; 34). Notice that the Gospel of John itself records many symbolic statements made by Jesus. Examples would include "born again," "living water," "meat that ye know not of," and "destroy this temple." Moreover, Christ made several "I am" statements throughout John's gospel (John 15:5; 8:12; 10:7; 10:11). Out of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus. Thus, we have good reason to believe that He was speaking metaphorically in John chapter 6. Jesus often used physical metaphors to illustrate spiritual truths.

          -In the Old Testament, eating bread was considered the equivalent of obedience to God (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4). This kind of reasoning in regard to the Book of the Law is echoed in the Jewish apocrypha (Sirach 24:20-22). Ben Sira also spoke of being fed with the bread of understanding and given the water of wisdom (Sirach 15:3). The Book of Proverbs employs similar imagery in the context of receiving instruction (Proverbs 9:5). The Jewish Philosopher Philo spoke in terms of consuming divine wisdom.

          -Just as God had provided manna to the Israelites in the desert as deliverance from starvation, so He had sent Jesus Christ into this world as a sacrificial provision to deliver us from eternal condemnation. That is the meaning of Christ being "bread from heaven."
          -Unlike the Torah, Christ can completely satisfy our spiritual huger and thirst (John 6:49-51). "Eating flesh" and "drinking blood" is to be understood as trusting in Christ for salvation. We consume Him by faith and He sustains us spiritually by that same means.

          -The use of future tense (i.e. "The bread which I shall give") refers to the forthcoming crucifixion and the spiritual nourishment that comes from Jesus' sacrificial act. This act is foundational for belief in Him and the salvation that He offers. When the Jews murmur about Jesus' statement of coming down from heaven, the focus remains on belief rather than literal consumption. The continuation of metaphorical language in this context suggests that the introduction of “flesh” and “blood” as elements to be "eaten" and "drunk" are intended to deepen the metaphor, not pivot to a literal sacramental understanding.
          -It is the words of Christ that impart life to those who believe (John 5:24; 6:63). This perspective of eating finds its basis in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 15:16; Ezekiel 2:8-3:3). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood means coming to Him and believing on His name (John 6:35).

          -The teachings about faith surrounding the discourse on eating Christ's flesh suggest a continuous theme: that spiritual nourishment and eternal life come from believing in Jesus and accepting His sacrifice. The "eating" and "drinking" metaphorically describe the depth of this spiritual communion and dependence on Christ. Just as the food and drink that we consume becomes a part of our being, so we become one with Christ as we abide in Him by faith.

          -"We shall be one with Christ, as our bodies are with our food when it is digested (v. 56): He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, that lives by faith in Christ crucified (it is spoken of as a continued act), he dwelleth in me, and I in him. By faith we have a close and intimate union with Christ; he is in us, and we in him, ch. 17:21-23; 1 Jn. 3:24. Believers dwell in Christ as their stronghold or city of refuge; Christ dwells in them as the master of the house, to rule it and provide for it. Such is the union between Christ and believers that he shares in their griefs, and they share in his graces and joys; he sups with them upon their bitter herbs, and they with him upon his rich dainties. It is an inseparable union, like that between the body and digested food, Rom. 8:35; 1 Jn. 4:13." (Excerpt taken from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Bread of Life Discourse)

          -Just as circumcision was a symbol of the Mosaic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-11), bread and wine are used as symbols by Jesus for the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). The Lord's Supper has sacrificial overtones because the elements point to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary, not themselves.

• Why Did Many Disciples Leave Jesus Christ During The Bread Of Life Discourse? Was It Because He Taught They Literally Had To Eat His Flesh And Drink His Blood?:

          -The audience left Jesus because it did not accept the claims that He had established concerning His divine messiahship (John 6:52). Unbelievers, who were in this case the Jews, had hardened their hearts against God. They remained around Christ because they were physically hungry. They were thinking only in material terms, whereas He pointed them to greater realities. The Jews were not searching for the truth of the gospel, which satisfies all longings of the human soul. Their thinking was not spiritual, but carnal. Misunderstanding does not prove literalism. It proves the statement was shocking, not necessarily physical.

          -If Jesus were teaching literal flesh‑eating, His statement that “the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63) would directly contradict His own command. In John’s Gospel, “flesh” consistently refers to mere physicality, and Jesus’ clarification shows that His words were never meant to be taken in a crude, bodily sense. His teaching points to a spiritual reality that only God can open the heart to receive. Christ Himself is the life‑giving source, and we partake of Him not by physical consumption but by believing in Him with the faith that unites us to His saving work.

          -Even if the Jews had understood His words literally, that does not prove such an interpretation to be correct. It is clear throughout the four gospel accounts that Jesus Christ did not have a problem with speaking bluntly and offending those who clung to their man-made traditions. He was not afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities. He spoke in a figurative manner, which requires interpretation. Jesus did not always explain His teaching (e.g. John 2:19-21), nor was He obligated to do so. Further, Christ knew from the very beginning who would have faith and who would not (John 6:64). 

          -Jesus often taught difficult and seemingly paradoxical truths (e.g. "the first shall be last," "lose your life to find it"). The difficulty that the disciples faced was about grasping the profound spiritual truth and the need for faith, not a literal directive to eat His flesh. Moreover, the Jews had erroneous ideas as to what the Messiah would be like. Therefore, Christ did not meet their expectations. His focus was on the kingdom of God, whilst theirs were political aspirations of an earthly kingdom.

• Why The Bread And Wine Jesus Spoke Of Cannot Be A Synecdoche:

          -Roman Catholic apologists sometimes argue that when Jesus refers to “bread and wine” at the Last Supper, He is using synecdoche, naming the outward appearances while the underlying substance changes. But this move opens the door to symbolic or spiritual‑presence interpretations. Even the most literalist view of communion admits symbolic elements, and once symbolism is admitted, the question becomes one of degree, not kind.
          -The deeper problem for this Catholic claim is that this use of synecdoche is linguistically inconsistent. A synecdoche never eliminates the literal referent, but expands it. When Scripture or ordinary language uses synecdoche, “breaking bread,” “all hands on deck,” “the cup,” “circumcision,” “the Law and the Prophets,” the original object remains present. The figure of speech works because the literal thing is still real. If “bread” is a synecdoche, then bread must still be bread. Otherwise, the term is not functioning as synecdoche at all but as equivocation.
          -This means the Roman Catholic argument collapses under its own category choice. If defenders of Rome insist “bread” is a synecdoche, then the continued presence of bread is required by the very definition of the figure of speech. If they deny the continued presence of bread, then they cannot appeal to synecdoche to defend their reading. Either way, the argument fails. 

          -Furthermore, biblical synecdoche always preserves the literal object. Scripture never uses synecdoche to mean “this thing is no longer here at all.” If Catholics allow themselves to redefine “bread” as “not bread,” then any biblical metaphor or figure of speech becomes unmoored from meaning. The interpretive method becomes arbitrary.
          -This is why symbolic or spiritual‑presence traditions are not linguistically overreaching. If Catholics appeal to synecdoche to defend their reading, others can appeal to the same rhetorical device to defend theirs, and with more internal consistency. Once it is acknowledged that the words “bread and wine” can carry layered meaning, it cannot be demanded that only one metaphysical interpretation is possible.

• Why The Catholic Literal‑But‑Non‑Physical View Of The Eucharist Cannot Be Sustained:

          -Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the eucharist is “literally” Christ’s body and blood while simultaneously denying that the elements possess any physical properties of a human body. This attempt to merge literalness with non‑physicality creates a category that Scripture never uses and ordinary language cannot support. A literal body without physical characteristics is not a literal body at all, but a metaphysical abstraction.
          -The deeper problem for this Catholic claim is that it redefines the word “literal” beyond recognition. In both biblical and everyday usage, literal language refers to what something actually is in observable reality. A literal body has flesh, blood, tissue, and physical substance. If the eucharist lacks all physical properties of Christ’s body, then calling it “literal” is not a faithful use of language but a philosophical reclassification foreign to Scripture.
          -This means the Roman Catholic argument collapses under its own terminology. If the eucharist is literally Christ’s body, then it must possess the characteristics of a body. If it does not possess those characteristics, then it cannot be literal. Catholic apologists attempt to preserve literalness by appealing to Aristotelian categories of “substance” and “accidents,” but these categories are not biblical and cannot rescue the contradiction. Either the eucharist is literal in the biblical sense, or it is non‑literal. It cannot be both literal and non‑physical.
          -Furthermore, Scripture never uses “body” or “blood” to refer to non‑physical realities. Christ’s body was born, suffered, died, and rose. His blood was shed physically on the cross. A non‑physical “body” and non‑physical “blood” are not the realities described in the New Testament. If Catholics redefine these terms to mean “non‑physical substance,” then biblical language becomes unmoored from its historical and theological meaning.
          -This is why symbolic or spiritual‑presence interpretations are not linguistically or theologically inferior. They preserve the integrity of biblical language without forcing it into philosophical categories foreign to the text. Once it is acknowledged that “body” and “blood” can carry theological depth without requiring a literal‑physical identity, it cannot be demanded that only one metaphysical interpretation is possible. The Catholic literal‑but‑non‑physical view is therefore not the strongest reading, but the most strained.

• Does Christ's Use Of Graphic Language Prove His Teaching To Be Literal?:

          -The shift from a generic term for eating in John 6 to a more graphic term in Greek (i.e. phago) would be the intensification of a metaphor. This shift is best understood as a way of stressing the importance of fully taking in Jesus' sacrifice and teachings, not as a command to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. The stronger language works like a metaphor that grabs attention and makes the point clear: just as food must be consumed to give life, so faith in Jesus must be deeply received to bring eternal life. Rather than pointing to a physical act, the passage highlights the need for a deep, personal trust in Christ that nourishes the soul the way bread nourishes the body. Metaphors often intensify when the speaker wants to drive home a spiritual point. Graphic imagery is a common device for deepening a metaphor, not abandoning it. Here are a few examples from the Bible: “Cut off your hand” (Mark 9:43), “Pluck out your eye” (Matthew 5:29), and “Eat the scroll” (Ezekiel 3:1–3). No one takes these commands literally, yet the graphic nature intensifies their seriousness.

• Does The Repetitive Nature Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:

          -Repetition can be a method to ensure a consistent message throughout different lectures. It does not necessarily prove any degree of literalness, but serves to reinforce a particular teaching or theme. In many cultures, especially in ancient times, repetition was a common rhetorical device used to emphasize important points. For instance, Ezekiel repeatedly laid on his side for long periods to symbolize the siege and suffering of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1-8). The prophet's use of vivid imagery and repetition helped to emphasize his messages and make them memorable to his audience. Further, Ezekiel frequently repeated phrases such as "Thus says the Lord God" to emphasize the divine authority behind his prophecies. Ezekiel often reiterated themes of judgment and restoration. Another example of phrases and themes happening again and again would be that of Solomon in Ecclesiastes (e.g. "vanity of vanities" in 1:2, "a time for" in 3:1-8, the theme of the pursuit of knowledge, and themes of toil and labor). This piece of wisdom literature emphasizes the transient nature of life and recounts man's quest of finding joy and meaning. It uses repetition to drive home philosophical points. Repetition helps in memorization and emphasis, which are important in oral traditions.

• Does The Forcefulness Or Vividness Of Christ's Words Prove Them To Be Literal?:

          -The use of vivid language can often be attributed to the author's literary style rather than a call for a literal understanding. Religious texts use powerful imagery to convey deeper meanings and evoke emotional responses. Vivid language in religious texts often serves to captivate and persuade the audience. For example, the Book of Revelation, authored by John himself, used incredibly vivid and powerful imagery to convey his eschatological visions (Revelation 6:1-8; 13:1-10). This persuasive technique was meant to leave a lasting impression, not ensure a literal interpretation of said teachings.

• Does Genesis 14:18 Foreshadow The Roman Catholic Eucharist?:

          -The bread and wine Abraham offered to Melchizedek was in celebration of victory over Kedorlaomer and his allies. It has nothing to do with some alleged change in the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ during the Last Supper. Bread and wine were actually commonly used in the days of Abraham. Further, even if the bread and wine in Genesis 14:18 did somehow foreshadow the bread and wine used during the Lord's Supper, they could just as well serve as a memorial of His passion. This is not a matter of literally eating the Jewish Messiah's flesh and drinking His blood for eternal life.

          -The offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek can be seen as a symbolic act. In this context, they symbolize God's provision and blessing through Melchizedek. If bread and wine are symbolic in the Old Testament, they can be seen similarly in the New Testament. The communion elements, then, symbolize His body and blood. The use of bread and wine as symbols shows a continuity of God's message through different covenants. In this view, the elements in the Lord's Supper serve as symbols that remind believers of Christ's sacrifice and the New Covenant established through His death.

• Does Malachi 1:11 Prove That The Lord's Supper Is A Sacrifice?:

          -The "incense" is a reference to prayers (Psalm 141:2; Revelation 8:3-4). The "pure offering" is a metaphorical reference to believers offering their praise and good deeds as sacrifices, which satisfy God (Hebrews 13:15-16; Philippians 4:18). The theme of spiritual sacrifice or offering is found throughout Scripture (Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 66:20; 1 Peter 2:5).

• Does Hebrews 9:23 Support The Repetitive Sacrifices Of The Catholic Mass?:

           -When the author uses the word “sacrifices” in the plural, he is not suggesting that Christ offered Himself repeatedly. He is speaking broadly about the old sacrificial system, where priests had to offer animals again and again because none of those offerings could fully deal with sin. In contrast, Christ’s death is presented as a single, decisive act that accomplishes everything those many sacrifices never could. The writer of Hebrews emphasizes this by showing how the priests stood performing the same rituals daily, while Christ offered Himself once and then sat down, signaling that His work was complete. This supports the idea that one perfect sacrifice has the power and effectiveness that countless earlier sacrifices lacked, making Christ’s offering uniquely sufficient.