The Sacrament of Communion - Responding to Common Protestant and non-Christian Objections

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Obj 1: John 6:63, within the context of the bread of life discourse, Jesus says, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." Therefore, he was speaking in a spiritual sense because eating his flesh would count for nothing.

Reply Obj 1: Catholics affirm the Spirit gives life. However, Jesus does not say, "My flesh counts for nothing" but rather "the flesh counts for nothing." If Christ literally meant that all flesh is useless, his incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection would have to also be deemed useless, sense they are intimately tied with a fleshly death. Further, Jesus states in John,

John 8:15–16

"Jesus tells his opponents: 'You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.'”

Just as he states in John 8, he states in John 6. The "flesh" is in reference to our poor judgement. We judge things with our fleshly and human reason, not with the grace of God.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Obj 2: In John 6:63 Jesus states, "The words I have spoken to you—they are spirit and life." Thus, Jesus was speaking spiritually not literally.

Reply Obj 2: The Bible has never used "spirit" or "πνεῦμα (pneuma)" to mean symbolic. Rather, the Greek translation literally means "wind or spirit" and is used to describe the Holy Spirit. Christ is saying that his words will only make sense when taken in faith.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Obj 3: Communion is a sin because it is cannibalistic. Further, the drinking of the wine, when said to be Christ's blood, violates Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:14, and Acts 15:28-29. Both of which condemn the drinking of blood.

Reply Obj 3: First, the Eucharist is not cannibalistic. Though long, Tim Staples goes in depth when he states,

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals

"In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

...

1. In cannibalism, the person consumed is, generally speaking, killed. Jesus is not killed. We receive him in his resurrected body and we do not affect him in the least. In fact, he is not changed in the slightest. He changes us! This is far from cannibalism.
2. In cannibalism, only part of the victim is consumed. One does not eat the bones, sinews, etc. In the Eucharist, we consume every bit of the Lord, eyes, hair, blood, bones, etc. But again, I emphasize that we do so under the appearances of bread and wine. This is essentially different than cannibalism, which leads to our next point:
3. In cannibalism, the accidents of blood and flesh are consumed. One must tear flesh, drink blood, etc. In the Eucharist, we only consume the accidents of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism.
4. In cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a person. The person and the soul of the victim would have departed. In the Eucharist, we consume the entire person of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. One cannot separate Christ’s body from his Divine Person. Thus, this is a spiritual communion as well as a physical consuming. We become one with Christ on a mystical level in this sacrament. This is far from cannibalism.
5. In cannibalism, one only receives temporal nourishment that is fleeting. In the Eucharist, we receive the divine life of God through faith and receiving our Lord well-disposed, i.e. we receive everlasting life (cf. John 6:52-55). This is essentially different than cannibalism.
6. In cannibalism, once one eats the flesh of the victim, it is gone forever. In the Eucharist, we can consume him every day and, as mentioned in #1, we do not change him one bit. He remains the same."

Lastly, the argument that drinking Christ's blood in the Communion wine is a sin fails. Paul stated in Colossians 2:16-17 that nobody should, "judge you by what you eat or drink ..." This includes animal blood. Further, Acts 15:28-29 was pastoral advice given to James because he didn't want the Gentile Christians to be condemned by the Jews. It was a description of advice given to James, not a prescription of eternal law given to all believers.

Even if the consumption of blood was a sin and the Eucharist was cannibalism, that would imply Jesus was symbolically teaching cannibalism and the drinking of blood. Even symbolically teaching sin is a sin. Thus, unless you are willing to concede Jesus was imperfect and sinful, it isn't a problem.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Obj 4: Often Christ says things like “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world”. Catholics don't take these literally, thus there is no reason to take his statement, "this is my body" literally.

Reply Obj 4: There is a big difference between saying, "I am the ____" and "this (pointing at something) is me". I can say to a friend, "I'm the backbone of this family", but only would he look at me with concern if I pointed at a backbone and stated, "That is me." Further, in John 6 Christ makes no attempt to correct those who left because of what he said. In John 6:30 his disciples reference the manna eaten in the wilderness. So Christ associates the bread given by God from heaven to eat with himself. He is the bread given by God from heaven to eat.

John 6:52 shows the disciples wonder how Jesus can give his flesh to eat, instead of correcting them and saying it's symbolic he states, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." He is crystal clear.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Obj 5: Catholics believe that the Eucharist is what makes the mass a "sacrifice", but Christ's sacrifice was sufficient (Hebrews 10).

Reply Obj 5: The Eucharist is not another sacrifice, it is Christ's sacrifice. Proof for this is found in Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 5:7 where he states Christ is our "Paschal Lamb" or "Passover". Why is this significant? Well, Paul is drawing similarities between Christ's sacrifice and the sacrifice in Exodus 12:6-8. This sacrifice had two parts:

1. The slaying of the sacrifice (Ex. 12:6)
2. The consumption of the sacrifice (Ex. 12:8-9)

Another example of this type of sacrifice is found in Leviticus 7:14-18. These two parts aren't two sacrifices, but rather two parts that constituted one sacrifice. So similarly, Christ's sacrifice has two parts:

1. The slaying of the sacrifice (John 6:49-51)
2. The consumption of the sacrifice (John 19:17-18)

Therefore, the sacrifice of the mass is not a new sacrifice, it is simply the second part of Christ's sufficient sacrifice.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————