Let me share with you just a bit of history. According to Will Durant's The Story of Civilization: The Age of Faith, 741

"The doctrine of the Real Presence developed slowly; its first official formulation was by the Council of Nicaea in 787. In 855 a French Benedictine monk, Ratramnus, taught that the consecrated bread and wine were only spiritually, not carnally, the body and blood of Christ. About 1045 Berengar, Archdeacon of Tours, questioned the reality of transubstantiation; he was excommunicated; and Lanfranc, Abbot of Bec, wrote a reply to him (1063), stating the orthodox doctrine: 'We believe that the earthly substance... is, by the ineffable, incomprehensible... operation of heavenly power, converted into the essence of the Lord's body, while the appearance, and certain other qualities, of the same realities remain behind, in order that men should be spared the shock of perceiving raw and bloody things, and that believers should receive the fuller rewards of faith. Yet at the same time the same body of the Lord is in heaven... inviolate, entire without contamination or injury.' The doctrine was proclaimed as an essential dogma of the Church by the Lateran Council of 1215; and the Council of Trent in 1560 added that every particle of the consecrated wafer, no matter how broken, contains the whole body, blood, and soul of Jesus Christ. Thus one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion - the eating of the god - is widely practiced and revered in European and American civilization."

When the Catholics came to Mexico, according to Prescott's Mexico, Vol.3,

"...their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..."

In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris (Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, 76). As you can see, like every other facet of Catholicism, transubstantiation is just another pagan practice. I would ask Mr. Sungenis to produce one Scripture where we are commanded to eat a live sacrifice with the blood. I found it interesting that the Abbot of Bec admitted eating a "raw and bloody thing". Exodus 12:9 forbids the eating of the passover lamb "raw"! Since Jesus is our Passover Lamb who was sacrificed for us (I Cor.5:7), and we are commanded to "keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof..."(Nu.9:14), then it would only stand to reason that we may not eat Jesus "raw". Did the Jews eat the passover lamb alive?

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen.9:4)

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it for the life thereof; therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."(Lev.17:10-14)

It is obvious that God forbids "literally" eating blood. So the question remains, did Jesus command his followers to "literally" eat blood and disobey God's commands? The only answer is no, because if Jesus broke the commands of God, or taught us to break His commands, then He would not have been sinless, and Heb.4:15 says he was without sin. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not change it. First of all, in Luke 22:18, Jesus took the cup and said:

"Take this and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

Why does Jesus call it the "fruit of the vine" if it's His blood? And why would he drink His own blood? I Cor.11:26 says, "For as often as "ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the lord's death till he come". If he's already there in the flesh, then why would we do it "till he come". The Catholic church teaches that the bread is Christ "flesh and blood, soul and divinity", which means that the Catholic is eating a pre-crucified Christ. They are eating a "live sacrifice with the blood"! Remember Jesus said "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you..."(Signifying our Passover Lamb who was sacrificed for us - I Cor.5:7) and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many..." The Catholic Peoples Encyl., Vol. 2, 386, says that the body they eat is the "Risin Christ". Did the blood re-enter into Jesus? (Remember that the soldier pierced Jesus' side and blood and water poured out on the earth). Rom.8:11 says, "...he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." While we are in the flesh, the blood is the life, but our glorified bodies are different (I Cor.15) (Also note that verse 5 says, "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." So the Catholics are not only eating a pre-crucified Christ, but also a pre- glorified Christ.

John 6:25-71 has been used by Catholics to prove that Jesus told us literally to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but does it really? They even go so far as to say that "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (v.66) because they refused "transubstantiation", but this is real stretch for the imagination to come up with such an absurd and erroneous interpretation. Let's look closely at what Jesus is really saying. First of all, you must remember that the Jewish religion was based on works. Here comes a man, Jesus, claiming that all they have to do is believe on him to be saved. Notice verse 28, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" Jesus simply replies (v. 29), "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent". Jesus goes on to say he is the "bread of God" which "came down from heaven" (v. 33) and "...every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him may have everlasting life" (v. 40). It is at this point that they began to murmur among themselves saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (v. 41-43) You see, they could not believe that someone they had known could be the Messiah and that faith in him alone could give them eternal life. The reason certain of the disciples left wasn't because he said "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood...", they knew he was speaking figuratively, and even said, "This is a hard SAYING" (Emphasis mine). They left because they did not believe that faith in Jesus as the Messiah could give them eternal life, the same thing Catholics deny today! Notice Jesus asked the twelve "Will ye also go away?" (v. 67) Peter answers, "...Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (v. 68- 69)

A few other points in John 6 should be noted. Verse 27 says, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life..." Question: Does the Catholic Eucharist perish? Answer: Yes!

"Christ remains present under the appearance of bread and wine no longer than the material appearances remain; once they cease because of digestion, or from any other cause, the presence of Christ ceases also." (Question Box, Conway, 447,and Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, 260, Doctrinal Catechism, Keeney, 230)

Now here we have the height of absurdity! The Catholic priest goes through this big ritual to transform ordinary bread into a "whole and entire Christ", yet once we swallow Jesus, our bodily function of digestion and natural heat turn it back into bread. The only nourishment the Catholic receives according to their own doctrine is bread, because the minute the eucharistic species ceased, or was assimilated or annihilated by our digestive system, it is no longer Jesus! Let me ask you something Mr. Sungenis, if you ate a "whole and entire" steak dinner, and 15 minutes later your dinner left you "whole and entire", unconsumed and unassimilated, how then would you have been nourished? Let me put it in plain English...If Christ enters a man "whole and entire" and then as soon as the bread is assimilated by digestive acids, he is no longer present, then what happened to him? Did we destroy (to consume, eat) Jesus, or did he leave "whole and entire"? If you say that we destroyed Jesus, then you would contradict your own church doctrine which says that Christ is incorruptible, so the only answer is that Christ would have left "whole and entire", therefore, Mr. Sungenis, you really never ate anything except bread! What a confusing and ridiculous dilemma tradition has put men in!

Jesus also says in Jn.6:54, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, HATH ETERNAL LIFE; AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY" (Emphasis mine). Question: Does the Catholic Eucharist promise eternal life? Answer: NO. As a matter of fact, if a Catholic believes he has eternal life, he has committed a sin of presumption and as such stands condemned, even though I John 5:13 says "...that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life" (Emphasis mine). As a matter of fact, the whole emphasis of John 6 is eternal life (vs. 27, 33, 35, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 57, 58, 63, and 68) How sad the Catholics, who take literal the eating of flesh and blood, don't take literal the promises that go with it!

Another point in John 6 is verse 63 "...the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life". This is where the Lord sums up his original statement. To feed our flesh did not profit our spirit. Remember, they were seeking him "because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled" (v. 26). That is why Jesus said, "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead" (v.49). To eat literally does not spring up to life everlasting. His words are "spirit and they are life". As Jeremiah 15:16 says, "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart..." And again in Ps.119:103 "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth." Instead of eating a piece of bread and hoping to feed your spirit, Scriptures tell us to take his word into our heart and feed our soul.

Remember that Jesus warned us "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees". Now for all you Catholic literalists, that doesn't mean that Jesus was warning that someone might try to put yeast in your communion host! Rather, he was warning us to beware of the "doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees". There is the "true bread", but as Satan is a counterfeiter, there is also a false bread, a bread with leaven (evil doctrine). As Proverbs 6:25-26 warns,

" Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life."

If one just look at the language of the Bible, they would see that to take literally eating flesh drinking blood is absurd. Mt.5:6 says, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled". Jn.4:4, "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst." Jn.6:35 "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." Jn. 7:37 "If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink." He is the "door"(Jn.10:9), and "the true vine" (Jn.15:1).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7