I know it’s true. You know it’s true. But non-Catholic Christians do not. They believe that Catholic teaching on the Eucharist—specifically the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist—is theological error, corruption, or novel invention of the Catholic Church. Is that even possible? Could the Church have gone wrong, generation by generation, across 2,000 years? How can we know that didn’t in fact happen?

Follow me on: Instagram | TikTok

My approach has always been to look back at our ancestors; those closest in proximity to Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church. How were Christian churches (Catholic dioceses and parish communities) worshiping as Christians? What were they doing? What did they believe? What was being written about the life, practices and beliefs of the early Church by early Christians?

The best source is the early Church Fathers. What did those authoritative theologians believe and report about Catholic belief in the Eucharist? By knowing what was in the Church mind, and Catholic practice at the time, we have to accept that the Church’s current belief and teaching is not a novelty, but the Truth of Christianity.

Before going to the fathers, let’s look at how Protestants believe the Catholic Church went wrong. After we go to the origin of that “error” we’ll talk about the origin of the Truth.

Many Protestants believe that Catholic teaching on the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is the result a corruption of the simple communal meal described in the New Testament.

According to this view, the Early Church began with a symbolic or memorial understanding. They believe that, over time, the Church developed ideas like transubstantiation, likely inspired by Greek metaphysics. This paganize theology was then formalized in the Middle Ages at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. and the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

So, for Protestants, the Church misunderstood Jesus’ words (“This is my Body”) and took John 6 too literally, and built a theology around that misinterpretation without biblical basis. They believe “This is my body” is a metaphorical statement, like “I am the vine, you are the branches.

You can see how this might convince Catholics to leave the Church, if they aren’t well catechized. The trouble is none of those claims can be supported by the history or theology of the Early Church.

Before we go further, consider these links that address Protestants’ claims that we misinterpret John 6, and that the Eucharist is just a metaphor, because I won’t be rehashing those points here.

Podcast: The Case for ‘Catholic Communion’” | Article: The Eucharist - A Scriptural Argument

Now that I’ve talked your ears off (or your eyeballs out) let’s go to the voices that matter; the Church Fathers. Here are quotes by five of these Superheroes of Catholicism, and why they matter. Take note that these tell us about the faith and beliefs, and practice of the first couple of centuries of Christianity going back even to the first century—all very close proximity to the Apostles and what they taught (which was given to them by Jesus Christ).

Practical Significance: St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. He does not say that the Eucharist is a metaphor, but affirms that it’s truly Christ's flesh, and warns that to deny this is heresy. It’s such a serious heresy, in fact, that he advises people even abstain from prayer until they’ve repented of that heresy! It’s important to realize that In the early Church, especially among the Fathers, the word “prayer” didn’t just mean personal prayer, but often also referred to the liturgical prayer of the Church—the mass; the eucharistic liturgy.

Practical Significance: Like Ignatius, Justin Martyr describes the Eucharistic celebration in the second century, showing continuity with what we celebrate today — that the bread becomes His true Body, not merely symbolic.

Practical Significance: Irenaeus ties the Eucharist directly to the Incarnation, showing how Christ uses material elements to communicate divine life. Remember that Jesus said “I am the Bread of Life” He didn’t say “I’m like the bread of life”. In the incarnation Jesus appropriates humanity to his divinity. I like to think that by calling himself “the Bread of Life” he appropriates the nature of bread, too—that he becomes physical nourishment (physical matter) and spiritual nourishment (his Divinity in the Eucharist).

Practical Significance: Cyril speaks directly to the mystery and certainty of the Real Presence, appealing to Christ’s words as trustworthy beyond all question. I don’t know how anyone could be more blunt or more clear, outside of Our Lord himself saying three times, “If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life within you.”

Practical Significance: Augustine teaches that faith sees deeper than the senses. Thet in the Eucharist, we encounter the mystical Body of Christ, the same Jesus who walked the earth.

The Church’s teaching on the real presence is not new, it is not a mistake, and it isn’t the fruit of a corrupt Church that has lost its way. You’ll have to look elsewhere for agencies that fit those three characteristics. The Holy Eucharist is the true, body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. It’s the greatest gift that Jesus left to us, through the Church He established. Let us not simply believe it, but let’s receive it with the deepest appreciation, and live our lives as worthy tabernacles of so great a gift. Hey, don’t forget to check out those links. I’ll post ‘em again below.

Did you enjoy this? Tap “Like” or comment, or both. It’s free, and it helps my distribution. Or consider sharing it!