Rochford Community Church

Answer: Jesus did literally speak but did he mean us to take literally the words he used in the verses about eating his body? Let's consider the verses, the suggestions put forward by those who want us to take them literally, and answers to those.

This page is likely to turn out to be much larger than most of the “Difficult Question” pages on this site because of the nature of the question and the consequences that flow out from it. We also need to say that almost invariably we seek to avoid criticising other parts of the Christian church but the question has been asked and the nature of the answer – if we are going to answer it and the ramifications of it – is going to mean that we will have to disagree with a large part of the Church that you will see disagrees with us, and therefore we feel it is valid to cover this subject in the way we are about to do. This is only going to be of interest to those (probably Christians) who wish to genuinely understand these issues.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

In a certain part of the Christian Church there has been adopted a doctrine that has been brought out of a literal interpretation of these verses. The Matthew verses are the Gospel record of Jesus speaking at the Last Supper, the 1 Corinthians 11 verses are Paul's interpretation of that time, and the John verses are critical verses that are used to justify a literal interpretation of what takes place at the Eucharist, Communion or ‘Breaking of Bread' (names dependent on which part of the Church you come from).

It is the Roman Catholic standpoint that interprets Jesus' words literally while the Protestant wing of the Church interprets it figuratively. Many scholars down through the ages have written much about these verses and it is with some hesitation, therefore, that we add to them. One of the primary differences between the Catholic and Protestant positions is that Catholics rely upon Scripture plus Tradition, while Protestants rely upon Scripture alone.

It does appear to us that as we have read Catholic justification for their position, it does genuinely seem that much of the strength of their argument comes from a desire to support the Tradition element, and indeed the way that some writers have written has clearly been through eyes that are trying to justify that tradition, and so the things on which they base their arguments could equally be used to justify the opposite view. Without doubt, the might and ‘majesty' of Catholic writings, history and dogma contribute enormously to the view taken on these things by Catholics today. Those Catholics who are uncomfortable with their Church's history and dogma, tend to have far less strong feelings about the outcomes of these discussions.

First of all, we wish to briefly observe the practice and beliefs within Roman Catholic orthodoxy that flow out of these verses, i.e. the Eucharist and Transubstantiation.

The New Advent online Catholic Encyclopaedia describes the Eucharist as follows:

The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.

One online site, gotquestions.org (a Protestant online website) has the following:

Question: "What is transubstantiation?"
Answer: Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine).

Searching the Internet produces many sites roughly confirming the same thing. The online Catholic Encyclopaedia extensively covers the subject and the following is just one brief quote from it:

In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ's Body and His Soul and Divinity as well.

Since Luther arbitrarily restricted Real Presence to the moment of reception (in usu, non extra), the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iv) by a special canon emphasized the fact, that after the Consecration Christ is truly present and, consequently, does not make His Presence dependent upon the act of eating or drinking. On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and Sacred particles that remain on the altar or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion .

That will be sufficient to give a flavour here of the outworking of the literal translation of these verses and we will make reference to some of this later on.

For those who may wish to research further the following are two links to key writings from the Vatican in recent years in respect of the Eucharist:

“To contemplate Christ involves being able to recognize him (a) wherever he manifests himself, in his many forms of presence, but (b) above all in the living sacrament of his body and his blood.” (Pope John Paul – 2003)

“The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, (a) the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and (b) the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood”. (PJP 2003)

In the above two quotes my lettering has been added for distinguishing the two points which, in both cases, the former of which Protestants would be happy with but the latter they would dispute, for reasons we will consider below.

The Protestant position is essentially that the verses above should not be interpreted literally and therefore the Roman Catholic usage of them to build a doctrine is unwarranted (but not meaningless, as we shall observe)

Again and again in Scripture we find the use of figurative language and John in his Gospel especially has come to see the significance of Jesus' use of such language (which the earlier Synoptic writers had not seen). The following are a few such examples which work gradually to our key verses, so please do persevere with the flow and development; you wouldn't want us to deal with this casually!

Jn 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

• The Jews clearly did not understand what he was saying and so John, in retrospect, makes his own comment on this: “But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said.” (v.21,22)

Jn 4:10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

• In the discussion that follows the woman focuses on literal water and Jesus has to point her to something more wonderful

Jn 4:13,14 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst.”

• There are three words used in a figurative sense in this verse of note: ‘thirst' – meaning spiritual thirst, ‘water' – meaning spiritual water (the Holy Spirit or eternal life, of whom He is the means), and ‘drink' meaning to take into one's life in fullness and reality.

Jn 4:32 he said to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about."

Jn 6:27 “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.”

• The crowd had come looking for the provider of material food; Jesus speaks about spiritual food which gives spiritual eternal life, which is what he's come to bring.

Jn 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

• Now he speaks about himself as bread, the way of receiving this eternal life.

Jn 6:35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

• Again a clear spiritual inference: spiritual hunger and spiritual thirst – satisfied by coming to Jesus and believing in Jesus.

• He hasn't said it yet, but even if he said no more, the ‘I am' analogy of bread has to mean that he has come as a food to be taken in, a source of spiritual life, and preliminary thoughts might take a reader to ponder on ‘taking in' Jesus to mean so that his life becomes one with ours.

Jn 6:40 “For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

• How to receive eternal life? Observe the words, ‘look to', meaning come to or rely on Jesus and believe in him. Now there is nothing figurative in this verse but Jesus' teaching is obvious: eternal life is received by coming to him and believing in him.

NB. So far, every single time he has used picture language, Jesus has not meant it to be taken literally, but figuratively. That is very obvious and beyond dispute.

Jn 6:41,42 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, `I came down from heaven'?"

• The listening and unbelieving Jews now have a problem with Jesus which is twofold. They don't understand his use of bread to describe himself and they can't get their minds round the thought that he came down from heaven – because they knew him to be a carpenter's son.

• This is a turning point. It is clear from scripture that Jesus used parables, and figurative language generally, so that those with a seeking heart would come, ask, hear and understand (See Mt 13:11 -17). To the obtuse, rebellious and self-righteous, Jesus simply made it harder to understand. That is clear from his teaching throughout the Gospels, and we'll comment further on it shortly.

Jn 6:51 “ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

• As the discussion continues with the Jews still being obtuse, Jesus pushes the analogy further, bit by bit.

• He first reiterates that he is the living bread from heaven, then he speaks about the need to ‘eat' this bread, and then he speaks of the ‘bread' as his ‘flesh' (body) which he will give for the world – an obvious reference to his coming death on the Cross.

• At this point he is still speaking about how to receive eternal life – how to enter the kingdom of God, how to be born again (to use the language of elsewhere in John's Gospel). It is not in any way about how to go on receiving it; it is about how to receive it once and for all.

• We reiterate what we said earlier, every single time he has used picture language, Jesus has not meant it to be taken literally, but figuratively.

• That is very obvious and beyond dispute – and it still applies even as he uses further and more extreme figurative language that requires even more thought given to it.

• To ‘eat' this bread from heaven? Surely there is no more intimate thing you can do with bread that take it in, digest it and let it become part of your very being. This has to be the sense that Jesus is applying here thus far.

Jn 6:52,53 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

• Observe first that the Jews are trying to take Jesus' words literally but can't manage it. If Jesus had wanted them to understand it literally, he would have explained further what would happen. He doesn't!

• In v.52 we see the Jews further expressing their unbelieving hearts of opposition. Jesus thus takes on his figurative language a stage further to bring them to a point of crisis of rejection. He doesn't want unbelievers in his discipleship band, only those who it is clear the Father is drawing to him.

• In v.51 he has introduced the use of the word ‘flesh' to refer to his body that was going to be crucified.

• Please note that thus far up to this point we have agreed that wherever Jesus used figurative language it was not to be taken literally. Now suddenly and, I would suggest, more to satisfy mystic tradition (more later) we find the Catholic Church wants make it literal. There are NO hermeneutic grounds for suddenly changing from figurative to literal meaning!

• What is the more likely meaning of Jesus' words here about ‘eating the flesh'? In v.51 we had no reason to change the meaning of eating figurative bread to mean anything other that to take Jesus totally into your life.

• Similarly in that verse the use of ‘flesh' clearly meant the human body that was soon to be crucified.

• The obvious meaning of the current verse has thus got to be unless you take into your life the fact of the death of Christ on the Cross for your sins you cannot receive this eternal life, for that is the only ground we have for receiving eternal life.

• But what about ‘drink his blood'? We have two words to examine. First – ‘drink'. We saw back in 4:13,14 that ‘drink' in a spiritual sense means to receive and take right into you(r life).

• Second, ‘blood'. The Jews of that day were an Old Testament people, possibly well taught about their past. Blood represented life itself.

• The whole of the Old Testament sacrificial system was about blood: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.” (Lev 17:11).

• Prior to that, blood had been at the heart of the Passover: “take a lamb… slaughter them at twilight… Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses.” (Ex 12:3,6,7) and then “The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” (Ex 12:13 ).

• It is no surprise, therefore, that John the Gospel writer records John the Baptist as heralding Jesus: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn 1:29) – more figurative language!

• The Jews should have understood the reference to blood and thus Jesus' meaning becomes, in the same way that blood was used to represent a life given to save the Israelites in Egypt, and then subsequently by the sacrifices offered at the Temple, so you, if you want to receive eternal life, must receive the giving of my life on the Cross into your lives, as the only means possible to be redeemed.

• We should reiterate here that if Jesus really wanted to change the minds of the obtuse, literal-thinking Jews and draw them into a half-hearted discipleship, he would have explained in terms that they could understand, but his teaching was quite clear about this (Mt 13:11-17).

• If we are to refuse to suddenly change horses and go from figurative to literal meaning in the middle of this discussion in John 6, then we need to similarly look carefully at this and the next verse.

• Note Jesus doesn't say, this bread is my real flesh, or, this drink is my real blood. Building the picture that we have seen him build previously, we can easily now see Jesus saying, my body which is about to be given for you on the Cross is the means of bringing a real life-bringing resource, so that my life which will be poured out on that Cross will be the real means of bringing you to a place of complete satisfaction. This will meet all your spiritual yearning in the relationship with my Father that this will bring about. But the Jews (and others) were too literalistic to see and understand this.

Jn 6:56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

• This has echoes of Jn 15:1-8 where Jesus refers to himself as a vine (another figurative picture) and us as the branches. The point made there, and we suggest applying here also, is that we are brought by the work of the Cross into a unity with Jesus where we are utterly joined to him and his life flows in us (his life being his Holy Spirit)

• At the conclusion of all this the unbelieving Jews leave, confirming Jesus teaching approach that we have noted previously.

• To turn the interpretive process on its head part way through a passage simply to conform to prior human tradition, merely demeans the Scripture, and us in the eyes of onlookers.

Mt 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

• Mark and Luke's records are similar. John doesn't bother to simply repeat what the Synoptic writers have covered and deals with other matters at the Last Supper which they hadn't picked up.

• It is here that the Catholic Church takes and applies the misunderstanding from the John verses we have considered above and moves into the mystical realm, but the question must be considered, was Jesus being figurative or literal here?

• We reiterate what we have noted before, that Jesus used symbolic language again and again to convey spiritual realities.

• Here he holds a loaf of bread in his hands and says, “This is my body”. At that second I think we can guarantee that none of the disciples around him considered that what they saw as bread was now flesh, Jesus' flesh. There were not two bodies present at that second.

• Now we have seen previously in our detailed consideration of parts of John 6 that Jesus focused, through the pictures that he gave to the Jews, on his death on the Cross and its effect as being THE means of bringing the possibility of a relationship with the Father which in turn brought eternal life.

• The ‘covenant' language in respect of the wine indicates that Jesus is doing the same again with both bread and wine which is confirmed by Luke's account – “ This is my body given for you.”

• Nowhere in the Gospel accounts do we find Jesus setting up ‘mystery religion' type rituals with hidden meanings. The only such things were baptism, which he continued from John, and Communion which he specifies is to be “in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:9)

• This conforms to his practice of highlighting or declaring the purpose of his death and resurrection which is continued by Paul in his letters and no more so that in the Communion passage of 1 Cor 11.

1 Cor 11:23-27 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

• Paul in this passage fills it with ‘proclamation language': “what I passed on to you” (v.23), “in remembrance” (v.24 and 25), and ‘proclaim'.

• The language here clearly indicates that his focus in ‘Communion' is a regular reminder or proclamation of the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection.

• As we comment below, this is not to demean the experience and the knowledge of the Lord at Communion, and it in no way diminishes the experience, although devout Catholics would probably be unable to understand that.

• The language of Catholic writings suggests that at the Eucharist Jesus is manifest and is offered as a sacrifice for sins, e.g. “Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity.” (We'll consider something more of this under the ‘Practical Reasons' below.)

• What we need to cover first is what the New Testament tells us about 'where' Jesus is today and then what he is doing.

• Again and again the point is made that Jesus is now seated at the Father's right hand (Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33, 5:31, 7:55, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Phil 2:9, Col. 3:1, Heb 1:3, 8:1,10:12, 12:2, 1 Pet 3:22).

• It is clear from these verses that Jesus is NOT operating in a sacrificial role after his ascension, but is a position of authority and rule.

• The Eucharist focuses on the ‘presence of Christ' but when we examine the New Testament, it only speaks in general terms about God's ‘presence' on the earth (e.g. 1 Thess 3:9) and when it comes to Jesus' ‘presence' it is in respect of him being in heaven (e.g. 2 Cor 4:14) and the only time Jesus' presence on earth is mentioned is in respect of his second coming (see 2 Thess 1:9,10).

• When he makes his presence known on earth, it is almost always in respect of his Holy Spirit (see in 2.3 below).

• We have just suggested above that today Jesus is ruling from his Father's right hand in heaven and that his activity on the earth today is only through the working of his Holy Spirit.

• What Catholic writings also convey is that what takes place at the Eucharist is the repeated offering of the sacrifice of Jesus' body and blood; this is why his ‘presence' is so important. There are at least two points that should be made in respect of this repeated sacrifice, in addition to what has already been said above.

• The first point is that the writer to the Hebrews tells us that this was a once and for all sacrifice: “He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” (Heb 7:27) and “he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Heb 9:12) and “now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself….. Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” (Heb 9:26,28) and “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb 10:10). Similarly the apostle Peter makes the same point: “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” (1 Pet 3:18)

• The second point is that there is no New Testament teaching that requires us to offer a sacrifice of Jesus, or for that matter any sacrifice other than of our lives (Rom 12:1) and the praise of our lips (Heb 13:15). Indeed the writer to the Hebrew expressly excludes there being any further expression of sacrifice for sins: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” (Heb 10:16-18)

• Within the New Testament, each of the members of the Trinity is revealed to have specific roles, each of which brings glory to the godhead in different ways.

• The Father is revealed to be the supreme head, Jesus is seen to be the Son ruling at His right hand exercising with His authority over the affairs of the earth (see the Lamb in Rev 5 taking the scroll of the end times), and the Holy Spirit operates as the executive arm of the Trinity on the earth.

• After his ascension, when Jesus moves on earth, it is always the Holy Spirit who is referred to in the Acts and epistles.

• Examples: Acts 2:4 – “ All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” 4:8 – “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them ….” Acts 4:31 - “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.” 5:3 - “Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit…” 5:32 - “We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit.” 6:9,10 – “These men began to argue with Stephen, but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke.” 7:55 – “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” 9:29 – “The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it.” etc.

• Although the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Jesus, it is almost as if the absence of Jesus mentioned is to accentuate his presence in heaven with the Father where he rules.

• Although there are references to Jesus being glorified, the greater strength of Scripture reveals that Jesus ultimate goal is to glorify his Father, e.g.

• Jn 12:27,28 “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? `Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” i.e. his death was to glorify God

• Jn 13:31 ,32 “Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.” i.e. Jesus sacrifice will glorify the Father and the Father will be glorified through the Son's sacrifice.

• Jn 17:1 “After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.” Again, the Son's death and subsequent resurrection will glorify the Father.

• Jesus is to be the foundation of our faith, i.e. our faith is built on what he achieved at Calvary and on the fact of his resurrection and ascension to heaven where he now rules, e.g.

• Acts 3:16 “By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.” i.e. observe – faith in the name of Jesus – the Son of God who died to make this healing possible and who has decreed this healing from heaven.

• Whereas we may think this distinction of little importance, the witness of scripture indicates that it does.

Here we wish to consider some wider issues that are more about practicalities of what happens rather than Scriptural or theological considerations:

• For the student studying these things for the first time we need to see the detail of some of Catholic writings, e.g. “Transubstantiation …. the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.”

• Radbertus (c.785-c.860) formulated the way that Christ's body and blood were present in the bread and wine by referring to what ‘appeared' as ‘accidents' and what was real was ‘substance'

• Even Pope Benedict acknowledges this is, “a reality which surpasses all human understanding,” but in any other context any rational intellect would suggest that in the analogy quoted above, to speak of the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood, is ludicrous. Something either is iron or it is wood and it can't be both. It takes a lot of words to bend the mind to believe what is nowhere else seen in the use of language.

• What in the cold light of day is being asked of Catholic believers is that despite every God-given sense telling them otherwise, this bread and this wine somehow are actually the presence of Christ.

• If this was suggested to us in any other context we would speak about gullibility or magic or make believe; it is tantamount to those somewhat dubious healers who pray for people and then say, “Believe that you have been healed.” If you still have the tumour you haven't been healed. When Jesus healed a leper, every sign of the leprosy disappeared, the person was healed and every sign of the disease was gone. It is the equivalent of Orwell's ‘double-speak' to say that wood is iron, or the religious equivalent.

• To speak about the presence of God being felt or experienced while taking the bread or wine is not a problem and quite understandable, for surely the Holy Spirit does make the presence of God felt at many times in the believer's experience, and therefore many believers do genuinely have a real sense of encounter with God at Communion – even when not part of the Catholic Church. Indeed honesty might suggest that many of those who partake in the Eucharist never have such a sense, as much as everyone might wish to have such an experience.

• Reality declares that, although we would wish that for every believer partaking it should be an act of faith, for many it is an act of superstition to appease an otherwise guilty conscience. Faith is a reality, but not every person comes to Communion or the Eucharist in an attitude of faith.

• Again reality would suggest that although the scriptures tell us that we “ We live by faith, not by sight,” (2 Cor 5:7) it is very obvious that many people wish for or require “an experience” that is tantamount to something almost tangible. For many Catholics “The Real Presence” at Eucharist is this ‘extra'.

• We should never deny that experience is a very real part of the Christian's life but it should not be something sought after to bolster a weak faith. The experience that we should have, should be of God moving, of His Holy Spirit coming and touching us, or moving us, or whatever else it is that HE does which cannot be demanded or replicated.

• I can never guarantee that in any one day or, more particularly, on a Sunday as part of the church, that I will sense, experience or encounter Christ. He WILL be there but my experience of him will depend partly on how I come but even more or what He decides He will reveal.

• We cannot make God turn up, or manifest His presence by the formula of words, even if we think the people in question have special authority.

• The only way in the New Testament that spiritual leaders were able to do something that was tantamount to God's presence being manifest through them, was when under the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit, the Lord brought healing or deliverance through them.

• The scriptural testimony is that Christians respond to God and can never make Him conform to their wishes. Indeed God Himself in Scripture doesn't institute rites that require or make Him turn up.

• Jesus, always our example, said, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (Jn 5:19).

• God never does anything by habit or by formula. He moves or manifests His presence when He decrees it is the right time according to the prevailing circumstances and people present.

• It is clear from Vatican writings about the Eucharist that much is made about the wonderful meaning and significance of this act which, by them, only has significance if the bread is changed into the presence of Christ, and anything less than that is spoken of in demeaning terms.

• The Pentecostal experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit and the subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer creates this same experience of the presence, without the intervention of man.

• The Catholic position that this presence can only be achieved through ordained priests,

• “Jesus Christ, who ‘through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God' (Heb 9:14), makes us, in the gift of the Eucharist, sharers in God's own life.” (PB – 2007). In his endeavour to encourage the faithful, Pope Benedict in this quote, appears to elevate this ‘experience' and almost make it an experience that can only happen at this time, and yet the clear and repeated teaching of the New Testament is that every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the very presence of God, whose life we share at all times, whether we are conscious of it or not.

• One is left feeling that the institution of a regular turned-on mystical experience came about because of the decreasing presence and power of the Holy Spirit experienced by the early church, the further it got from Pentecost, and after the earliest apostles died.

• Catholic writings on this subject, sometimes relies on the early church writers, but it is clear that they too were struggling with understanding the realities of the Christian Faith and experience, and therefore it is quite obvious that they were not right in everything they said. To build on their writings is therefore not always a wise thing to do, especially when some of those writers were clearly trying to amalgamate philosophy and mysticism with basic Christianity.

• The belief in ‘The Real Presence' is clearly a comfort to many Catholics but one has to ask, do they (or we in the Protestant fold, for that matter) know and experience the power and presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives wherever they are, or is it limited to a mystical experience within sanctified walls at the hands of a sanctified special person?

• Such a suggestion brings a much greater challenge to the believer in respect of their whole lives, not merely liturgical times. Jesus calls us to take his very real presence, by the power of his Spirit, with us wherever we go and whatever we do. Shallowness of much modern Christianity means that that is frequently not so.

The last thing we wish to do is offend Catholic Christian believers. We have encountered many Catholics throughout life and although it is clear (and this clearly observed in different countries around the world) that for some, Catholicism is more of a cultural lifestyle than a religious belief, there are also clearly many who put their Protestant brothers and sisters in the shade as far as their piety is concerned.

We would also wish to add that the writings from the Vatican are also often a joy to read, as long as one takes on board and recognises the particular theological issues that we have referred to as ‘add-ons'. We joy in much of what has been written but have to add that once you take out these ‘add-ons' there is little that cannot be found in the plethora of Christian books found in Christian bookshops all over the country. The ‘Protestant world' is a world that writes a lot, and much of it is worth reading. If we were alone in disputing this particular area of Catholic teaching, we would indeed be arrogant and vulnerable in the face of the enormous volume of past Catholic writings, but over half the Christian world also disagrees.

However, we are aware that the contents of this particular page may give grounds for offence and we are sorry for that. It might be worth pointing out that much official Catholic writing from the past (and present?) makes it very clear that the opinion of the Vatican is that the Protestant world is not part of the true church – and that IS offensive to those of us who are not Catholics but who know a living experience of the salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ and a relationship with the Father.

We have dialogued with good Catholic friends who we highly respect, yet we find two things that disturb us. The first is the emphasis, almost to the exclusion of anything else, of the mystical experience which has become the heart of their faith and which sometimes is used to demean the non-Catholic believer who is ‘clearly lacking something'! This is, in fact, a form of ungracious and ungodly arrogance.

The second thing is the often weak use of the Bible and failure to apply strict hermeneutic and exegetical discipline to the work of interpretation of scripture which, if applied, we are convinced, would result in some very different conclusions. Instead it appears that this discipline is absent, not because of ignorance, but because it is overshadowed by the belief in tradition and the emotion of the mysticism, so that wrong conclusions are accepted specifically to fit in with the already stated position of tradition, which somehow seems to lack intellectual integrity. That grieves us when we find it, but having read hard and long concerning the positions of our Catholic friends, we regret that it is still there.

If those friends (and others) read these pages and are challenged in their understanding of Scripture and the reality of their walk with the Lord, then the effort will have been worth it.

Difficult Questions?