The Eucharist: Biblical Reality or Catholic Tradition?

Introduction

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been asked two questions regarding the Catholic Church.

First, where did sprinkling babies for baptism originate?

Second, questions concerning the Eucharist.

Before proceeding, let me make something clear. Everything I am about to share has been verified personally. I visited a Catholic Church, spoke with someone there, and picked up one of the free booklets they provide. I told them who I was, where I preach, and why I was there.

The Eucharist is what Catholics refer to as the Lord’s Supper.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, the word is associated with “Communion.”

The term itself comes from the Greek word eucharistia, meaning thanksgiving or gratitude. It is related to the Greek verb eucharisteo, meaning “to give thanks.” In Matthew 26:27, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24, the Greek text uses forms of eucharisteo.

The issue, however, is not the word itself.

The issue is the doctrine attached to it.

Catholics believe that the elements of the Lord’s Supper literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

According to the booklet Sacraments: The Seven Spiritual Wonders of the World:

“The Catholic Church takes the words of John 6:53-55 literally.”

The teaching is that although the bread and fruit of the vine continue to appear unchanged, when the priest pronounces the sacred words, “This is my body,” the elements are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ.

The booklet explains:

“The priest at each Mass repeats the words of Jesus over the bread and wine. An ordained priest is also required for the consecration of the bread and wine. The priest stands in the place of Christ, the one High Priest, and therefore must be a man. In the words of the consecration at each Mass, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, the very Soul and Divinity, of Christ – a process formally referred to as transubstantiation.”

Furthermore, Catholics teach that Jesus is literally being offered again. This is why the Mass has often been called the “sacrifice of the Mass.” According to the Council of Trent, this sacrifice is considered identical to the sacrifice Christ offered on the cross.

Historically, lay members commonly received only the bread while the priest alone drank from the cup. This practice became known as “communion under one kind.” The lay member consumed only the wafer—referred to as the “host”—while supposedly receiving both flesh and blood through that one element.

When I spoke with someone at the Catholic Church, I was told they had only distributed the bread since 2020 due to COVID.

I also learned that the priest adds a small amount of water to the fruit of the vine.

All of this is connected to the doctrine known as Transubstantiation.

Yet this doctrine did not originate in the first century.

The Eucharist became one of the seven sacraments of Catholic theology. The word sacrament comes from the Latin sacramentum, meaning “a thing set apart as holy.”

The seven sacraments are:

  • Baptism
  • Confirmation
  • Penance
  • Eucharist
  • Sacred Orders
  • Holy Matrimony
  • Extreme Unction

By the medieval period (approximately A.D. 500–1500), the Roman Church had become deeply steeped in doctrinal error. Hugo of St. Victor (1096–1141) described sacraments as outward and visible signs of inward spiritual grace.

The formal doctrine of Transubstantiation was not defined until the medieval period, especially at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and later the Council of Trent (1551).

This is Catholic theology.

But is it Biblical reality?

No.

Why does any of this matter?

Because the Eucharist, infant baptism, sprinkling for baptism, and many other doctrines represent departures from the faith once delivered.

Paul warned this would happen.

  • 1 Timothy 4:1-4
  • 2 Timothy 4:1

The question before us is simple:

What do the Scriptures teach concerning the Lord’s Supper?

And why have so many accepted the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Let us begin with the truth.

God’s Word.

The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament

Designed by Christ

The Lord’s Supper originated with Jesus Christ.

The expression “Lord’s Supper” is found in 1 Corinthians 11:20.

Jesus instituted it with His apostles before His death (Matthew 26:26-29).

This was not a church invention.

This was Christ’s design.

It Is All About Christ

Notice the emphasis Jesus placed upon Himself.

“Take, eat; this is My body…”

Then He said:

“Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:27-28).

Paul later rehearsed these words in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24.

The purpose is remembrance.

The Lord’s Supper directs our minds to Christ.

Paul further stated:

“You proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

The focus is not on a miracle occurring in the bread and cup.

The focus is on remembering the sacrifice of Jesus.

It Is To Be Done Often

Paul discusses the observance in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

The frequency is revealed through approved apostolic example and necessary inference.

Acts 20:7 demonstrates saints assembling on the first day of the week to break bread.

The first-century pattern points to a weekly observance.

It Can Bring Judgment

This memorial is not something to approach carelessly.

Paul warned:

“Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner…”

(1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

Improper participation can bring judgment.

An Unseen Guest Is Present

Jesus declared:

“I will not drink this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:26-29).

Jesus physically partook with the apostles before His death.

That changed afterward.

The kingdom now exists.

Christ reigns.

Through His death we have fellowship with Him.

In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul uses the word koinonia, meaning fellowship or communion.

Christ is present through spiritual fellowship, not through a literal transformation of bread and wine.

There Is No Variety

The elements are simple.

Unleavened Bread

Matthew 26:26-29 identifies the bread.

It represents His body given for us.

Through His sacrifice we are delivered from death.

Fruit of the Vine

The expression “fruit of the vine” was a Jewish idiom referring to the juice of the grape.

It represents Christ’s blood of the New Covenant.

Through His blood we receive redemption.

The emphasis in Scripture is not the container.

The emphasis is the contents.

Comparing Scripture and Catholic Tradition

Notice several significant differences.

Everyone Is To Eat and Drink

Jesus said:

“Drink from it, all of you.”

Yet in Catholic practice, historically only the priest drank from the cup.

Christ Is Not Being Sacrificed Again

The Lord’s Supper remembers the sacrifice.

It does not repeat it.

Hebrews 9:28 teaches Christ was offered once.

To claim repeated sacrifice diminishes the sufficiency of Calvary.

Jesus Still Called It Fruit of the Vine

After giving thanks in Matthew 26:28-29, Jesus still referred to it as:

“The fruit of the vine.”

If it had literally changed, why call it fruit of the vine?

Paul Still Called It Bread

Throughout 1 Corinthians 11, Paul repeatedly refers to:

  • Bread
  • Cup
  • Proclamation

Even after prayer and thanksgiving.

If the substance literally changed into flesh, why continue calling it bread?

No Mystical Transformation

When Christians give thanks, they are not asking God to transform emblems into literal flesh and blood.

The New Testament never teaches such a thing.

No Biblical Evidence

Neither Jesus, the apostles, nor first-century saints believed they were literally consuming Christ’s physical body and blood.

The elements are symbols designed to help believers remember His sacrifice.

Misinterpreting John 6

A major reason many believe Transubstantiation is their interpretation of John 6.

In John 6:51-54, Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

The Jews were troubled by those words.

Many assume John 6 is discussing the Lord’s Supper.

It is not.

John 6 Is Not About the Lord’s Supper

First, the Lord’s Supper had not yet been instituted.

That would occur later.

Second, the context is faith.

The Setting

  • Jesus fed the 5,000 (John 6:1-15).
  • Jesus walked on water (John 6:18-22).
  • The crowd searched for Him (John 6:25-26).

They wanted more food.

Jesus redirected their attention to spiritual food.

John 6:27 speaks of food that endures to eternal life.

This is not physical food.

The explanation comes in John 6:29:

Belief in Jesus.

The entire chapter emphasizes faith.

Eating Equals Believing

Jesus said in John 6:35:

“He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.”

Do we take that literally?

Of course not.

Christians still get hungry and thirsty.

Even Paul did (2 Corinthians 11:27).

The language is figurative.

Eating and drinking represent faith, dependence, and fellowship with Christ.

Jesus Frequently Used Figurative Language

In John 16:23-29 Jesus acknowledged speaking figuratively.

Examples include:

  • Herod was called a fox (Luke 13:32).
  • Jesus called Himself the door.
  • Jesus called Himself the vine (John 15:5).
  • Christians are called the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13).

No one interprets these literally.

Likewise, when Jesus said:

“This is My body”

He was speaking figuratively.

What Does “Eat My Flesh” Mean?

In John 6:50-56, Jesus is emphasizing that He is the source of eternal life.

To eat and drink of Him means:

  • Hearing His teaching (John 6:44-45)
  • Believing in Him
  • Abiding in Him
  • Living for Him

The chapter concerns fellowship and faith.

It is not about Transubstantiation.

It is not about the Lord’s Supper.

Literal Interpretation Creates Problems

If interpreted literally:

  • Jesus would be commanding cannibalism.
  • The disciples would violate Jewish prohibitions concerning blood (Leviticus 17:10-12).
  • Christ’s physical body would have to exist simultaneously in thousands of locations.

Scripture instead presents:

  • A symbolic meal
  • A memorial
  • Spiritual fellowship

Not literal consumption of flesh and blood.

Apostolic Tradition or Man-Made Tradition?

The deeper issue is not merely the Eucharist.

The deeper issue is authority.

The Catholic Church has departed from Scripture.

First-century Christians were to continue steadfastly in:

“The apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42).

Anything conflicting with apostolic teaching was to be rejected (1 John 4:1-6).

Paul commanded Christians to stand firm in apostolic traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Those traditions were God’s words communicated through inspired men (1 Thessalonians 2:10-13).

When people depart from Scripture, they fall into error.

When we examine the first-century church, worship was remarkably simple (Acts 2:42-47).

The Church Belongs to Christ

Jesus said:

“I will build My church” (Matthew 16:18).

The church belongs to Him.

Not councils.

Not popes.

Not traditions.

Not centuries of accumulated theology.

This reality should encourage every Christian to continually search the Scriptures like the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

Some Catholics would have us believe we are missing something if we do not participate in the Eucharist.

The truth is that we lose nothing by rejecting doctrines that cannot be found in Scripture.

Conclusion

Jesus is head over His church (Ephesians 1:21-22).

The King resides in Heaven.

The Eucharist, infant baptism, and sprinkling for baptism give people false hope because they are built upon teachings that cannot be established from God’s Word.

They must be rejected.

True hope is found in Jesus Christ.

True authority is found in Scripture.

And true worship is found when we follow the pattern revealed by the apostles rather than the traditions of men.

Benjamin Lee

Discover more from

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.