#12478 Who Thought the Eucharist Was Just Symbolic? Early Church Beliefs and Transubstantiation (ENCORE) - Joe Heschmeyer

Summary

Catholic Answers Live: Episode #12478 – "Who Thought the Eucharist Was Just Symbolic? Early Church Beliefs and Transubstantiation" (ENCORE) with Joe Heschmeyer
Original Air Date: November 28, 2025
Host: Cy Kellett
Guest: Joe Heschmeyer (Catholic apologist, author of The Eucharist is Really Jesus)

---

Overview

This episode dives into common objections and confusions regarding the Eucharist, especially focusing on whether early Christians believed it to be “just symbolic” or truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Joe Heschmeyer addresses objections from Protestant, Catholic, and secular perspectives and brings out the deep biblical and historical roots of the Church’s eucharistic doctrine—including the real presence, the role of philosophy (transubstantiation), Old Testament prefigurements, and responses to modern misunderstandings.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Depth and Mystery of the Eucharist

Timestamps: 00:00–03:47

• Cy Kellett introduces the profound nature of the Eucharist; it's simple enough for a child, yet inexhaustible for even the greatest theologians.
• Joe Heschmeyer notes the Eucharist as central to the heavenly liturgy and as an image of personal intimacy:

  “The whole image of heavenly liturgy is centered around the wedding banquet of the Lamb. … You are united to Christ in a special and unique way that’s unrepeated and unrepeatable.” (01:13–02:41)

• The early Church recognized a combination of communal unity and personal relationship in the Eucharist.

Early Church Unity on the Real Presence

Timestamps: 03:47–07:10

• When did disputes on the Eucharist begin?
  Joe: Practically all early Christians were united in affirming Christ’s real presence, except Gnostics (denied incarnation, and so denied a bodily Eucharist).
• Quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch shows that denying the Real Presence was already seen as a grave error in the 2nd century.
• Joe cites Gregory Dix:

  "There is no pre-Nicene Eastern or Western writer whose eucharistic doctrine is at all fully stated who does not regard the offering and consecration of the Eucharist as the present action of our Lord himself." (05:11–06:06)

• Protestant attempts to create theological conflicts among the early fathers are often reading in divisions not present at the time.

Apostolic Understanding: Did the Apostles Object?

Timestamps: 07:11–08:58

• Objection: “The Apostles didn’t object, so it must have been symbolic.”
• Joe: Their lack of objection shows faith, not metaphor. Peter’s response in John 6:68 embodies trust without full understanding:

  "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…” (07:35–08:58)

“Breaking of the Bread” – Eucharist or Just a Meal?

Timestamps: 08:58–12:48

• Objection: Catholics read Eucharist into every “breaking of bread.”

• Joe notes the ritual, liturgical context. "Breaking bread" in Scripture (Emmaus, Acts) is distinctive and tied to Eucharistic acts—not just an idiom for eating.

• “To take the metaphor and then explain away the Bible with a metaphor that derived from the Bible’s original meaning is completely backwards.” (10:14–10:22)

• The four ritual verbs (take, bless, break, give) are unique to Eucharistic settings, not casual meals.

Objection: “The Eucharist Doesn’t Do Anything”

Timestamps: 12:48–20:22

• Objection: If the Eucharist is so powerful, why don’t I feel anything? Why isn’t my life changed dramatically by Communion?
• Joe uses the analogy of electricity:

  “Grace is not magic... Your free will can get in the way. … The light switch can impede the flow of power to the light… What you can do is get in the way.” (15:56–17:00)

• St. Paul already anticipated this objection (1 Corinthians 10–11): Israel received miraculous food and drink but still fell.

  “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (1 Cor 11:27–30; cited at 19:18–20:22)

• The fruitful reception of the Eucharist depends on preparation—self-examination, confession if needed, and discernment.

Getting “Plugged In” to Eucharistic Grace

Timestamps: 20:22–22:41

• Joe: Examine your conscience, receive in a state of grace, and recognize Christ in both the Sacrament and your neighbor.
• Real growth in charity and transformation flows from deeper Eucharistic faith and reception.

Objection: “Transubstantiation Is Just Greek Philosophy”

Timestamps: 22:41–26:11

• Objection: The language of substance and accident is foreign to biblical/Jewish origins.
• Joe: The Church uses “substance” to express the mystery; the philosophical terms are tools, not the essence of the faith.

  “If there’s another way you can articulate that same truth, then go for it. But transubstantiation is an adequate way of capturing it… That looks like Jesus but isn’t. The Eucharist doesn’t look like Jesus but is.” (25:25–25:58)

Objection: “Lutherans/Anglicans Say Jesus Is Really There Too—What’s the Difference?”

Timestamps: 29:23–35:16

• Objection: Why not accept consubstantiation or another “real presence” doctrine?
• Joe: Catholicism teaches the bread and wine cease to exist—only Christ remains. Early Church fathers (e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem) are clear:

  “The seeming bread is not bread ... but the body of Christ” (31:16–31:42)

• Also, only Catholic teaching (and Orthodox) maintains the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not solely a presence.

Objection: “Ongoing Priesthood Isn’t Biblical/New Testament”

Timestamps: 35:16–40:22

• Objection: “We don’t need priests between us and God anymore.”
• Joe: The Old Testament high priest was “high” because there were many priests. In the New Covenant, there is a general (baptismal) priesthood and a ministerial (ordained) priesthood—prefigured in Isaiah 66:21 (“some of them I will take for priests and for Levites”).
• The notion that all or none are priests contradicts both OT typology and specific NT passages.
• The argument from silence (“the NT doesn’t explicitly detail this”) is weak—Hebrews explicitly names Christ as high priest, and only in one book.

Objection: “Catholics Divide by Not Allowing Open Communion”

Timestamps: 43:23–48:03

• Objection: If the Eucharist brings unity, why exclude non-Catholics?
• Joe:

  “This is how Christians have done it for 2,000 years… You don’t give what is holy to the dogs.” (44:22–46:03; referencing Matt 7:6)

• From Justin Martyr (2nd century): Only those who believe the Church’s teaching, are baptized, and live as Christians may receive.
• Open communion would mean neglecting the seriousness of unworthy reception (1 Cor 11), and the Eucharist's role as the visible bond of unity in faith.

Objection: “Eucharist Is Just a Pagan Ritual Copy”

Timestamps: 48:03–53:44

• Objection: The Eucharist echoes pagan bread-and-wine rites (Mithras, Dionysus, Isis, etc.).

• Joe: Most “parallels” are either fabrications or gross exaggerations by later polemicists like Alexander Hislop.

• True similarities (food, candles, ritual) are so generic that they prove nothing; where specifics do align, the evidence usually shows pagans copying Christians.

• Justin Martyr already notes in the 2nd century that pagans were imitating Christian Eucharist, not the reverse.

• “So a lot of the stuff that looks like Christianity is because it borrowed from Christianity—not Christianity borrowed from paganism ... It’s just romanticizing paganism. It’s not good history.” (51:31–53:44)

• Catholicism teaches that Christ elevates human nature and natural signs (food, water, oil, etc.) for supernatural ends, as fitting with the Incarnation.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On mystery and understanding:

  “You will not penetrate the full depths. Not in this life you won’t.” (00:00–01:13, Cy Kellett)

• On trusting Christ despite not understanding:

  “Peter doesn’t say, ‘Oh, we totally get it’... He doesn’t pretend to. This is a moment of just a trustful following of Christ.” (08:36)

• On misuse of biblical language:

  “To take the metaphor and then explain away the Bible with a metaphor that derived from the Bible’s original meaning is completely backwards.” (10:14)

• Eucharist as spiritual electricity:

  “Grace is not magic. … You can receive all the graces in the world and still not use them... The light switch can impede the flow of power to the light.” (15:56–17:00)

• On transubstantiation and language:

  “That looks like Jesus, but isn’t. The Eucharist doesn’t look like Jesus, but is.” (25:25–25:58)

• On closed communion:

  “Closed communion is very clearly the teaching of the early Christians, under the principle that Jesus lays out, ‘Don’t give what is holy to the dogs.’” (45:40–46:03)

• Pagan/Christian ritual confusion:

  “It’s just romanticizing paganism. It’s not good history.” (51:31–53:44)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–03:47 — Introduction and the inexhaustibility of the Eucharist
• 03:47–07:10 — Early unanimity, Gnostic dissent, and what counts as “Christian”
• 07:11–08:58 — Apostles’ response to Jesus’ words: faith, not symbolism
• 08:58–12:48 — “Breaking bread”: ritual or just a meal?
• 12:48–20:22 — “The Eucharist doesn’t do anything” – the role of free will and worthy reception
• 20:22–22:41 — How to prepare for and receive Eucharistic grace
• 22:41–26:11 — “Transubstantiation” and philosophical language
• 29:23–35:16 — “Real Presence” beyond Catholicism, and why Catholic teaching prevails
• 35:16–40:22 — The necessity of the ministerial priesthood
• 43:23–48:03 — Exclusion from communion as protection and timeless discipline
• 48:03–53:44 — Are Eucharistic rites borrowed from paganism?
• 53:44–end — Sacramental signs and the logic of the Incarnation

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

This episode equips listeners with a robust understanding of:

• The biblical and historical evidence for the real presence and sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.
• The early Church’s unanimous witness, and clarity on what was “symbolic” and what was taught as divine reality.
• The relationship between philosophy and doctrine—why philosophical language helps (but doesn’t invent) Eucharistic faith.
• Why closed communion is ancient, pastoral, and biblically grounded.
• How common Internet and secular objections (e.g., “pagan parallels”) collapse under close scrutiny.

Heschmeyer’s tone is accessible, clear, and pastorally sensitive—inviting all, Catholic or not, to deeper faith and understanding.

---

Recommended Resources:

• The Eucharist is Really Jesus by Joe Heschmeyer
• The Early Church Was the Catholic Church by Joe Heschmeyer
• Justin Martyr’s First Apology, Lecture 66

---

“We become the Body of Christ because we partake of the Eucharistic Body of Christ.” (22:41–22:55, Joe Heschmeyer)

Transcript

[A]

Buying or selling your home. Real Estate for Life can connect you with a pro life real estate agent. When Real Estate for Life receives a referral fee, they donate 65% to Catholic Answers. Learn more at realestateforlife.org. Welcome back to Catholic Answers Live. I am Cy Kellett. Your host, Joe Heschmeyer is our guest. We're running through, as we were last hour, all the objections to the Eucharist. Catholic Church has a well developed teaching on the Eucharist, one that a second grader can understand, at least well enough to consent to receiving Communion. But someone who has studied for, I don't know, say, 100, 150 years. I don't know how old people are living these days. You still will only be just scratching the surface. You will not penetrate the full depths. Not in this life you won't. Yes or no to my description of.

[B]

Oh, very much so. I mean, the whole image of heavenly liturgy is centered around the wedding banquet of the Lamb. And so there's this sense in which heaven itself is sort of an unpacking of what's happening in the Eucharist. So, yeah.

[A]

The images just keep opening new horizons for you.

[B]

I mean, there's a reason one of the promises in the book of Revelation is that to the one who triumphs, he'll receive a stone with a name on it known only to God. And hidden manna. There's something intensely personal about that. Adam's first job in naming the animals in the garden. You create a kind of relationship in naming. This is why you tend to name your pets and not name the livestock you're gonna eat.

[A]

Yeah, don't name the livestock.

[B]

Exactly. And so, you know, name changes are huge in the Bible. The fact that you have a special name known only to God means like the height of, like, the personal relational intimacy is expressed with that image and the hidden manna, which is a very Eucharistic kind of image. And so somehow those two things together we should understand that, like, literally heaven, there's this sense, which on the one hand is very communal. The body of Christ is participating in the body of Christ. On the other hand, you are united to Christ in a special and unique way that's unrepeated and unrepeatable.

[A]

Well, thank you, Jesus. All right, so we went through some of the. By the way, Joe, again, I should mention again, is the author of a lot of books, but among them, the most relevant to the topic today is the Eucharist is really Jesus. And you can get that wherever you get good Catholic books, you really can get it wherever you get good Catholic books. And let me take you through another objection. Maybe this is a mild. Well, all of the objections will be milder than the big objections. I mean, when did the Eucharist become church dividing? Was it right from the beginning of the Reformation? The fact is that there are Christians Orthodox would disagree in much of the language that the Western church. But that's language, but the fundamental belief. You know, I could read Father Schmemann writing for the Russian Orthodox Church and everything. He writes about the Eucharist, I believe, about the Eucharist. But then there's this other Christianity, Younger, which is non literal in its understanding of the Eucharist. How did we get to that point? If I may just before I go back to the objections.

[B]

Yeah, no, I think. Well, this is a very good question. It depends a little bit on what you define as a Christian. So the Gnostics who deny the Incarnation and deny that Jesus really died on the cross and deny that he really rose from the dead, but still consider themselves Christian in some sense while endorsing some pretty pagan Greek heretical views, if you regard them as Christians, they denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist because they didn't think he had a body that could be made present. And if you read St. Ignatius of Antioch writing about 107 in his letter to the Sumerian, he warns against the Gnostics and specifically warns against them that we can't have communion with these people because they don't believe in the real presence of Christ in communion. He says they confess not the Eucharist to be the body and blood of our Savior. And therefore he says to have nothing to do with them. And he says that they're not going to go to heaven. He says they won't rise again because they're incurring death upon themselves. And so he's suggesting that they're being cut off in some way from bodily resurrection because of their rejection of the Eucharist. So what we would consider Christians, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, anyone who's kind of conversant in church history would say, yeah, the Gnostics weren't really Christians. Then you don't have any major disputes on the Eucharist. The Christians are united and the people challenging Eucharistic doctrine are either pagans who think it sounds too cannibalistic or. Or Gnostics who think it sounds too bodily. And so even the Anglican liturgical scholar Gregory Dix, in his Shape of the Liturgy, says there is no pre nicene Eastern or Western, whose eucharistic doctrine is at all fully stated, who does not regard the offering and consecration of the Eucharist as the present action of our Lord himself, the second person of the Trinity. And in the overwhelming majority of writers, it is made clear that their whole conception revolves around the figure of the high priest and the altar in heaven, that there's this idea that Christ is really present and is actually being presented in sacrifice. And as many times as you see anyone spell out their views on the Eucharist, this is what they say. So if you're you know, I mentioned this to James White in our debate, and his response was basically, well, what about people whose views aren't fully stated? It's like, sure, if you just say this person didn't cover the Eucharist, so maybe they're a Baptist. Yeah, you can always play that game.

[A]

No, that doesn't dispose of the point that every Christian who expresses an understanding of the Eucharist in the first, what, 350 years of the church, more than that, even.

[B]

But yeah, but.

[A]

It is always expressed the way that the orthodox and the Catholics now would express it. It's always expressed in a way consistent with that.

[B]

We can accept everything written on the Eucharist said by the early Christians, whereas Protestants who will try to incorporate some of the church fathers have to invent conflicts that the early church fathers didn't think they were in, meaning that they will say, oh, well, you know, there was this one camp that was very literal and very physical and this other camp that was very spiritual, as if these are two different, like, conflicting, contradictory eucharistic theologies. And we would just say some fathers focused on one dimension of the Eucharist more than the other. I mean, in the prior hour I mentioned that we can talk about the Eucharist with Christ's presence, or we can talk about the emphasis on the sacrifice, we can talk about the emphasis on communion. And all of those are true. And it's not like we're disagreeing when we focus on one and not the other.

[A]

Joe Heschmeyer, our guest.

[B]

All right.

[A]

Well, let me give you a few relatively minor objections. Let you work through a few that are that I hope will not tax you. But it doesn't seem that the the apostles objected in any way to Jesus saying, this is my body, this is my blood, and that their lack of objection suggests they just understood him to be speaking metaphorically. They didn't take him literally.

[B]

Well, no, I think we don't see them object, but we do see them signaling a certain lack of understanding. So after Jesus lets many of his disciples walk away, he goes to the 12 and says, Will you leave also? And Simon Peter, speaking on behalf of the twelve, says in John 6:68, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God. So this is put in that category of things where you just say, well, God is God and I'm not, so I'm going to trust him even if I don't really understand what he's saying. And that is a totally valid place to be where you can give a true assent. And even though your assent is without a deep understanding as to why.

[A]

Yeah, we do that at the doctor's office. The doctor says, you're going to need surgery. I don't know anything about that. I give my assent because you're the doctor.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

I might get a second opinion. But you can't get a second opinion from God, right?

[B]

Turns out the three persons all give the same diagnosis. So, yeah, the divine physician comes and this is what he says to do. And so Peter is just like, okay, we're going to trust you. But you'll notice Peter doesn't say like, oh, we totally get it. We completely understand everything you just said. He doesn't pretend to. This is a moment of just a trustful following of Christ.

[A]

All right, so how about this one? There is an objection sometimes that it does seem that Catholics kind of over eucaritize some of the. Well, I just invented that. Some of the New Testament passages, like, they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship to the breaking of the bread. Well, that just says the breaking of the bread doesn't say Eucharist on the first day of the week. These are from the Acts of the Apostles on the first day of the week. We came together to break bread. Are we. I mean, because really, I break bread all the time with people. And it's not the Eucharist.

[B]

I mean, first I guess I would question, do you break bread? Meaning that there is a particular moment in the liturgical life of a Jew where there's a ritualized breaking of bread.

[A]

Oh, there is.

[B]

It's the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Normally, even if you eat with someone, you're not actually breaking bread with them. We use that as a figure of speech for a common meal. But that's coming from the biblical language, not the other way around. And so in the same way that the parable of the talents gives rise to our metaphorical use of the word talented, not the other way around.

[A]

Ah, I see.

[B]

And so to take the metaphor and then explain away the Bible with a metaphor that derived from the Bible's original.

[A]

Meaning is completely backwards.

[B]

So with the Last Supper, look at the verbiage, like at each of the institution narratives in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and, and in 1 Corinthians you have this very again, ritual kind of language where he takes, blesses, breaks and gives. And you'll find sometimes some slight variations, but it tends to be something like those four verbs. And you have to say, okay, do the authors of the New Testament know that I know how to eat food? Are they really just giving me a four step instruction for I've got a piece of bread and I want to eat it.

[A]

That's a good point.

[B]

What do I need to do?

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

And like, it's the lamest wikihow ever of just like first you pick the bread up, then you break it. You know, it's like, that's not what's happening. You contrast it with places like for instance, when the resurrected Christ eats fish, we're just told he eats the fish. There's no step by step instruction. And fish is actually a lot harder to eat because it had bones.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so anyway, that's not what's happening. It's ritual kind of language. And so then look at John 24, on the road to Emmaus. And on the road to Emmaus they get to the house and in verse 30 it says when he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. It's like, huh, how strange those same four verbs pop up again here. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him and he vanished out of their sight. And, and then they go back and tell the disciples, and I'm going to quote here from verse 35, how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread, that they came to recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread. All of that is heavily Eucharistic sounding language.

[A]

It sure is, yeah.

[B]

And it's heavily liturgical sounding language. And so then when you read Acts, which is also written by St. Luke, it in light of the way Luke has used this language around the breaking of the bread, then you think, okay, that sounds like the Eucharist at the Last Supper. And it sounds like Christ being made present to them in the breaking of the bread at the road to Emmaus. And so it's not a surprise that breaking of the Bread is one of the early descriptions of the Eucharist that is coming from the Bible. Whereas this more loose sense of just like we're going to break bread together as friends and we're going to have lunch together or something, that is a much more derivative, looser sort of sense.

[A]

All right. All right. Well, actually, in your defense of that, in your defense there of the idea of breaking the bread as representative of the Eucharist, you raised another problem that I want to get to after the break. I do have to take a break, right, Darren, take a break right now. All right, so, and here's the problem. You're claiming as Catholics, this is eating the flesh and drinking the blood of God, and yet it doesn't seem to do anything. Like you said, oh, they broke the. They recognized him. But I don't have that experience. Nothing seems to happen. There's no, you know, it's like in the old days when the kids would eat, tricks like a light show would appear over their head.

[B]

That was probably just the food dyes.

[A]

Yeah, I think it was the food dye. It was red dye number nine or whatever. But nothing happens. The Eucharist doesn't make anything better. It doesn't fix anything. So I want to deal with that objection when we come back.

[B]

That sounds good.

[A]

Stay with us for more Catholic Answers Live.

[C]

Underwriting for Catholic Answers Live is provided by Magnificat. Published monthly, Magnificat features texts of daily Mass, prayers, articles, meditations, art, commentaries and more. In step with the liturgical rhythm of the church. On the [e-mail] EWTN has its own official YouTube channel with tens of thousands of videos covering just about every conceivable topic of interest to Catholics. And best of all, it's free. Every day, EWTN adds new TV shows, live events, devotionals, homilies, and specials to its YouTube channel. Visit the EWTN YouTube channel today. EWTN, the global Catholic network.

[A]

Welcome back to Catholic Answers Live. We're doing all the objections that we can think of to the Eucharist for Joe. Joe Heschmeyer. Our guest, the author of the Eucharist is really Jesus. He's also the author of Pope Peter. He's the author of the Early Church Was the Catholic Church. He's author of A Man Named Joseph. Don't tell me. Man named Joseph for our times. Okay, you have to tell me, who am I, Lord? No, no, but I didn't do a Man named Joseph.

[B]

Oh, man named Joseph. Yeah. Guardian for our time.

[A]

Guardian for our time. I Couldn't remember the Word. And then the other book.

[B]

Who am I, Lord? Finding your identity in Christ.

[A]

Yeah, with the beautiful cover. I always loved the COVID of that book. It's a paint. It's Giotto. No, not Giotto, the French paint.

[B]

El Greco.

[A]

El Greco, yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I like that El Greco painting. All right, so here's my objection to the Eucharist. And this is not really. I have to say, I was thinking about it at the break. I think this is a Catholic objection to the Eucharist. This is not just Protestants make this objection. Look, you're telling me, Joe Hashmayer, this is the body and blood of Christ, the Lord God made incarnate, and I get nothing out of it. It doesn't do anything. I have no magical feelings. I get no powers. Nothing comes from the Eucharist.

[B]

Yeah. So I would say two things. Number one, St. Paul already addressed this objection, which is already a good sign that we're on the right track. And number two, he doesn't use this image because he wouldn't have. But imagine, like, the power station pumping electricity into your house. Grace is not magic. And the way the grace of God works leaves plenty of room for your own free will to resist grace. Grace is resistible. And unfortunately, you can receive all the graces in the world and still not use them in the same way that you could have power flowing to your house and never turn on the light switch. That there is a sense in which the light switch is simply, am I going to be receptive to what the power company is giving me or not? Yeah. And, you know, the light switch doesn't do anything to make the light work. It doesn't have the ability to. Like, if without the power station, the light switch is worthless. What the light switch can do is get in the way. It can impede the flow of power to the light, which is good, because otherwise your house would always be, you know, on.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Well, similarly, your free will, you can't create divine grace for yourself. You can't give yourself any of that. But what you can do is get in the way. And you can fail to utilize the gifts that you've been given. So if you think about the parable of the talents, one gets five, another gets two, another gets one. However many talents God has given you, you are free to use those or you're free to bury them. And if you bury them, you can't then say, well, the talents didn't do anything. That's because you buried them. Okay, so St. Paul gives some really helpful Examples from the history in Israel. This is in First Corinthians 10, chapter. I think I've mentioned, like six times so far. He begins by saying, I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. So what's he talking about there? The parting of the Red Sea. The parting of the Red Sea. They're led by the Holy Spirit in a pillar of cloud, and they're passing through water. And so he's making an analogy to the sacrament of baptism. We have this being born again of water and the Holy Spirit. And then he says, and they all ate the same. And then the food, the translation just says spiritual food or supernatural food. And they all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the supernatural rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ. So what's he talking about there? Well, the eating was the eating of the manna, which again ties us back to John six. We already talked about that last hour. And the drinking is drinking water, which is miraculously coming from the side of a rock. So they're eating the bread from heaven and they're drinking water from the rock. Who is Christ. And yet St. Paul says in First Corinthians 10, verse 5, nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. So you can be led by the Holy Spirit visibly. You can be baptized through the Red Sea, you can receive the bread from heaven, you can drink of Christ and still live a life that is displeasing to God. That's the warning that St. Paul wants to give. And he says that these things happen for our instruction, that we should be taking from this like, don't do as they did. And then he then immediately proceeds to give theology of the Eucharist, beginning in verse 16 and then carrying on all the way through 1 Corinthians 11. And at the end of 1 Corinthians 11, he warns about those he says, 1 Corinthians 11:27. Whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord, and in an unworthy manner, will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. So he's warning like, you can receive the Eucharist in a casual and an unworthy manner, failing to recognize the Body and blood of Christ. And if you do that, the Eucharist is not going to be of any avail to you. And in fact, receiving it in a profane and unreligious and unholy kind of manner is actually mortally sinful. And you're eating and drinking judgment and death upon yourself.

[A]

So how do I. I can't avoid the question, even though it's a little off of our objections thing. But how do I get plugged in then? Like, that's the question. Like, if someone's listening and is like, okay, Joe, fine. You use the. You said it's not magic. It's like electricity. I don't know if you know this, Joe, but electricity is magic. I have no idea how it works. Therefore it's magic. But you use that metaphor. So how do I get the. Don't leave me hanging, Joe.

[B]

Yeah, how do I get. St. Paul goes on in the very next verse to say, but if we have judged ourselves, truly, we should not be judged. So first do a good examination of conscience. Am I in such a position as to receive Christ in the Eucharist? Because notice the two things he tells you to judge. Recognize this as the Body of Christ, discern the Body of Christ, and then judge if I'm capable of receiving him right now. So if you need to go to confession, this is bare minimum. Don't receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Canon 9:16, the Code of Canon Law warns us, don't do that. Whether anyone else knows you're in mortal sin or not, don't purposely put yourself in a situation where you're going up unworthily to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The more you discern Christ, the more you recognize Christ in the Eucharist, the more you recognize what he is doing for you. I think the more you can get from the Eucharist, and then the more you can come to live that out in your relations with your neighbor. Because one of the things that St. Paul also talks about here is, as I said before, we become the Body of Christ because we partake of the Eucharistic Body of Christ. Which is why right after giving this eucharistic theology in 1 Corinthians 11, the next chapter, 1 Corinthians 12, is all about what does it mean to say the Church is the Body of Christ. So now if I've discerned Christ in the Eucharist, I can start to discern Christ. In my neighborhood, I can start to see from the Eucharistic body of Christ how my own body is being transformed into the body of Christ, and that my neighbor, particularly my Christian neighbor, is also a member of the body of Christ. And I can approach them differently. If you live in that spirit and start acting as if Christ is present in your neighbor, I think you'll see the results.

[A]

All right, we're doing objections to the Eucharist with Joe Heschmeyer, the author of the Eucharist Is really Jesus. I want to try to phrase this the way that the objector actually phrases it. So I'm going to do my best here. But there is a kind of objection to the Aristotelian language, the language of transubstantiation, of substance and accidents. And it seems to me that at the root of the objection is a kind of all of that is Greek. And I just. It's an imposition. In other words, the Catholic theology is an imposition on the Jewish. Now, it's funny because you've talked repeatedly about the Jewishness of the Eucharist and you haven't talked. But I do want to get to this objection that, look, Catholics lost their way and went with all this fancy language and this Greek philosophy. And what we really need to get back to is a more. A purer, less philosophical Christianity. And it's. Which is all symbolized by these big words, substance and accident and transubstantiation.

[B]

Yeah. Jimmy Akin had an article back in 2023 where I thought he did a very good job of addressing this. It's on his own website under the title Can a Catholic Reject Transubstantiation? But I think we also carried on catholic dot com.

[A]

Oh, because there was a priest that said, I believe in the real presence, but not transubstantiation.

[B]

Yeah. Father Thomas Reese.

[A]

Oh, good old Father Thomas Reese.

[B]

You know, I'm not besmirching his name. He did that himself. Yeah. And there's this idea. This is all Aristotelian language. And even as you pose it in the question, this language of substance and accidents. But if you read the language of the Church, it actually only says substance. You're not required to believe in, we say elements or appearances. And so we're actually not using the full Aristotelian language. And if you know anything about the history of Aristotle in the west, the early Christians, like the earliest Christians, would have probably been much more open to Aristotle than a lot of the Christians in the 1200s. So at the University of Paris, they had actually forbidden the reading of aristotle's works about 10 years before the Fourth Lateran Council, where transubstantiation is defined. So this idea that this is all coming from Aristotelian logic or thinking or categories is a myth. It's just literally not true.

[A]

Oh, okay, but those are Greeky words. They're Greekish.

[B]

I mean, substance is, I guess, but all. So one of the best explanations I've ever heard of the Eucharist didn't come from a philosopher as such, but from a little girl who was preparing for first communion and the priest asked her how she understood the Eucharist and she pointed at the cross and said, that looks like Jesus, but isn't. The Eucharist doesn't look like Jesus, but is.

[A]

Yes, right.

[B]

All of the big language about transubstantiation and everything else exists to, in a more technical way, say it continues to not look like Jesus. It looks like it's bread and it looks like it's wine, but the reality is that it is Jesus. And the technical term for the underlying reality, beyond the appearances, is the substance.

[A]

Gotcha.

[B]

And so if there's another way you can articulate that same truth, then go for it. But that transubstantiation is an adequate way of capturing that and maybe.

[A]

Sorry right back. Have you ever wondered about the mysterious, even obscure aspects of the Catholic faith? Dive into the Jimmy Akin Podcast where Jimmy brings together information from many fields as he pushes the boundaries of apologetics. Tune in today to the Jimmy Akin Podcast Mysteries of the Faith, a highly entertaining, informative and at times humorous show that will help you grow in your faith. Visit jimmyakinpodcast.com today to subscribe.

[C]

Lots of people have big questions about Catholicism. It needs a big book of answers. And now it's got one. The Big Book of Catholic Answers is filled with helpful replies to more than 250 questions about the faith. Questions about God, salvation, history, the Creed, the Bible. The list goes on and on. Order your copy of the Big Book of Catholic answers [e-mail] or ask for it at a good Catholic bookstore near you.

[A]

What was the Church like in its infancy? In a word, Catholic. And Joe Heschmeyer has the receipts in his best selling book, the Early Church Was the Catholic Church. He gives you the details from the historical records of the first two centuries of Christianity. Right now, get a copy for just $10 plus free shipping if you live in the continental United States. Get more information and order. The early Church was the Catholic church@the.

[C]

Earlychurchwascatholic.Com what is the Catholic Church? Everyone seems to have an opinion, but the church never quite fits into the boxes people make for it. In the Faith Unboxed, author Andrew Petaprin looks at some of the most common boxes people put the Catholic Church in and explains why they don't fit in. Doing so, he brings us closer to what the church really the institution founded by Christ. Order the Faith unbox [e-mail] or ask for it at a good Catholic bookstore near you.

[B]

Welcome back.

[A]

Catholic ANSWERS Live. Joe Heschmeyer, our guest. We're working through all the objections we can think of for Joe to address to the Eucharist. It's central to the practice of the Christian faith, the way that most Christians understand it now and have always understood it. But it's not. It's certainly not universally accepted, the Catholic understanding. And so I'm trying to throw all the objections at Joe and see if he can address them. I hope that it's helpful to you or at least interesting to you. And so you just gave one. That raises another objection. You just gave an answer. That raises another objection. The answer was that little girl who says, who points to the crucifix and said, that looks like Jesus, but it's not Jesus, and then points at the Eucharist and says, that's not Jesus. No, that doesn't look like Jesus, but it is Jesus.

[B]

Yes, that's right.

[A]

Little girl was way better at this than I. She should be the host of this show.

[B]

We would get so many views if we had a little kid as a host.

[A]

We really would.

[B]

Wouldn't we be a little kid?

[A]

We should get a little kid. Who do we need?

[B]

They're bad at cutting to the break, though. But again, they may not be alone in that.

[A]

Yeah, there's nothing that I do that they're gonna be worse at. You might say they're terrible at phones. Well, I'm not good at phones. I think I'm talking myself out of a job right now. All right, so here's the objection. Look, that I can point to the Eucharist and say, that doesn't look like Jesus, but it is Jesus. And hold a Lutheran view, which is, yeah, Jesus is there. Maybe he's mixed in with the bread or he's under the bread or he's there with the bread. And I know it's not just Lutherans. I realize there is a great diversity of Protestant views on this. There's no such thing as the Protestant view of the Eucharist, but many Protestants will say, look, I totally agree with what Joe just said. Jesus, that's him. And it doesn't look like him, but that's him. So why am I not an Anglican or a Lutheran or a Methodist maybe that says these things?

[B]

Yeah, I think it's a good place to start by saying not every Protestant is a Baptist or a non denominational Christian. Because a lot of people have in their mind, you know, especially if like the part of the country you're from or the part of the world you're from, the people around you who call themselves Protestants think it's just a symbol. That is a very popular Protestant view. It's not the only one.

[A]

Right. Okay.

[B]

It's in a lot of ways the most obviously false and the easiest to refute because the other ones require getting a little deeper into the theology. You can find plenty of people saying that this is the flesh and blood of Christ, but they would just say, but that doesn't mean it's not also bread. Yeah.

[A]

Or wine. Yeah, right.

[B]

The issue here is twofold. You got historic and then you also have kind of theological. So historically, we know that the early Christians said repeatedly that it wasn't bread. So for instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, he's written about 350, this is lecture 22, and he's preaching to a group of newly baptized Christians. They're about to receive first communion. And he tells them to be fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the body of Christ. And the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the blood of Christ. So very clearly it's not just saying that the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ, but have also ceased to be bread and wine. And it's that second part that is the major point of difference between the Catholic view and a more in, with and under or consubstantial sounding theology. That's one obvious point of departure, and you can find plenty of early Christians who take that view. The second dimension, I would point out, is actually the sacrificial dimension. Because the Lutheran view is at the Mass, there's a sacrifice of praise, but in no sense is the sacrifice of Good Friday being presented that we are then participating in. Martin Luther was extremely against that idea. He wrote against private masses, wrote against masses, as you know, this thing that can be offered for the living and the dead. And the early Christians were incredibly clear about this as well, and they had biblical support. I've already mentioned First Corinthians 10, where St. Paul describes the Eucharistic sacrifice in terms of the Jewish sacrifice at the altar, the. And the pagan sacrifices to demons. But there's also Malachi 1, which the early Christians, including Christians in the 1002s and before in the Didache, probably from the first century, where they were talking about while the New Testament is still being written, they're comparing the Eucharist to the sacrifice foretold in Malachi 1. So Malachi 1, God is displeased with the Jewish priests because they're offering impure sacrifices at the altar, which he calls the table of the Lord. And then he says that he's going to bring the Gentiles in to offer true sacrifices from the rising of the sun to its setting, that a pure offering will be offered to his name. So the early Christians point to this and say, look, we got all these Gentile converts who are coming in and they're offering these priestly sacrifices of the Eucharist. This is what Malachi one was talking about. And you find this in Irenaeus, you find this in Saint Justin Martyr, you find this in the Didache, as I said, in the first century. So there's at least, there may be more than those three, but I know there's at least those three from 180 or before that. You actually find this more attested than the claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the four Gospels, because Irenaeus is the first one to tell us that in 180. And at that point, at least two others, maybe more than that, have already made this connection between the Eucharist and Malachi1. So the idea of the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Christ made present is very much the theology of the early Christians. And this is, you know, I mentioned that quote in the last hour from the Anglican scholar Gregory Dix, who says that there is no pre Nicene like before the Council of Nicaea Church Father, in either the east or the west, who takes a different view other than that this is the priestly offering of Christ made present on earth. So as far as we can tell, the unanimous view, there's no Eucharistic controversy. The really big Eucharistic controversies come in the 9th century and later. And so before that, you have what seems like a unanimity among the early Christians and a unanimity that is pretty distinctly Catholic. The best you can hope for as a Protestant is sometimes somebody wasn't totally clear whether they were Catholic or not. But everyone who is clear is Catholic, and everyone who isn't clear seems Catholic. But maybe you can find some wiggle.

[A]

Room again, Joe Heschmeier, our guest. We're running through the objections to the Eucharist, to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. This one I'm loathe to give it because it sounds slightly tangential, but I do think it's related, and that is the. The Protestant objection to an ongoing priesthood, because you need a priest for the Eucharist. And so one of the objections to the Eucharist almost seems to be like an amalgam of. Let me just throw out some of the statements that I think all go together. I don't need a priest between me and God. I can go directly to God. The Holy of Holies was torn at the crucifixion of Christ, which shows that now I can just go directly to God. Christ is our eternal high priest. We don't need other earthly priests. And I could go on and on, but. So the objection to the Eucharist. There is an objection to the Eucharist which is slightly indirect, but I want to address it, which is it requires a priesthood and the priesthood is over.

[B]

Yeah. So it's fascinating because you'll often hear these three positions, sometimes from the same person. They'll say, there are no priests in the New Testament. There's one priest, Christ, the eternal high priest. Or we're all priests because we've become a royal priesthood. And the problem is, like, you should at least listen to how it sounds, like you're contradicting yourself. And in fact, if you understand how it can be both that Christ is the high priest and we are priests, then you're already 90% of the way to resolving this difficulty. Because the whole thing about the high priest, why call him the high priest instead of just the priest? Because he wasn't alone. This was the leader, and he was helped by other priests. He had a unique role in offering, but he was aided by the other priests and by the Levites. So all of us are, in one sense, priests of Christ. Now, an important question should be asked here. A priest is one who offers sacrifice. So is your offering united to the sacrifice of Christ, or are you trying to do your own thing apart from Christ? If it's united to the sacrifice of Christ, then there has to be some sense in which the sacrifice of Christ continues throughout time. Which is why St. Paul can talk about making what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ in his own body for the Church. That is a priestly offering that he's talking about there. So all of us are according to our baptism, incorporated in one sense in the priesthood of Christ. Yes. And that's why you can't point to Christ being our high priest as therefore mitigating the idea of another priesthood, because the high priest was part of a broader priesthood. And so that whole image points to the very thing that they're trying to reject. The question then becomes, is there a kind of priesthood that we're not a part of? And the answer to that biblically, is yes. And here's what I would say. In Isaiah 66, you have a foretelling of the New Covenant. This is another of these passages about the Gentiles being brought into the people of God and then offering the cereal offerings and clean vessels to the house of the Lord. So it's got this very already pretty Eucharistic sounding language. But in Isaiah 66, 21, it says, and some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites. Now, the Levites were the people who helped the priests. The priests are of the tribe of Levi, but particularly the sons of Aaron, the high priest, Moses and his brother there of the tribe of Levi. So that tribe broadly all help in some way liturgically. But within that tribe, only some of them are called for priests. And then the other 11 tribes aren't called to do any of that stuff in the temple. So what does that prefigure? Well, it prefigures the priesthood and the diaconate. And so when it says some of them, now, if it said none of them, that would square with Protestant theology very nicely. If it said all of them, all believers are going to be priests and Levites, you could square that. But it says neither of those. It says some of them. So some Christians are called to participate in the New Covenant priesthood, and some aren't. Some Christians are called to be Levites, deacons, and some aren't. It's not everybody or nobody. And so if you square all of that, and then look at all the passages that speak of sacrificial offerings, and particularly the Eucharist is a sacrificial offering, then you see there really is a very clear priesthood, sacrificial dimension. The last thing I'd say on this, many times people say, well, why doesn't the New Testament spell all of that out more clearly? And to that I would say this. Do you know how many books of the New Testament even mention that Christ is a high priest? One just Hebrews, the canonicity of which was disputed in the early church. And so if you say an important way of understanding what Christ is doing is that he's making a high priestly offering. You should also recognize only one book explicitly addresses that. It's implicit in several other books. It's consistent with the rest of the New Testament. But you can't use an argument from silence to reject the New Testament priesthood because that argument would really undermine a lot of the priestly theology we have about Jesus himself.

[A]

Joe Heschmeyer is our guest. I've got some objections from the well, some of them will be a little more secular objections. Some of them will be a little more Catholic objections. We've done a lot of Protestant objections. We're trying to get as many objections as we can in front of Joe Heschmeyer, the author of the Eucharist Is really Jesus. More coming right up on Catholic ANSWERS Live. You're listening to Catholic Answers Live. Underwriting for Catholic Answers Live is provided by Real Estate for Life. Real Estate for Life connects home buyers and sellers to real estate agents while supporting pro life organizations on the web at realestate for proclaiming the faith, changing lives.

[B]

The year was 2004. EWTN announces the launch of the newest.

[A]

Addition to its lineup, Sunday Night Live with Father Benedict Groeschel, featuring Father Groeschel doing a little teaching, a little preaching.

[B]

And taking phone calls.

[A]

To learn more about Mother Angelica's life in the history of EWTN, visit ewtn.com motherangelica who was the first Catholic in your family? Were they evangelized by a friend, a co worker, a stranger? Did you ever think that you could be that person that God uses to save a soul and that soul could save their family, their grandchildren and generations to come? At St. Paul Street Evangelization, a Catholic nonprofit, we train, equipment, equip and mobilize Catholic disciples to do the urgent work of evangelization. Catholic Answers is supported in part by St. Paul Street Evangelization. Streetevangelization.com. Welcome back to Catholic Answers Live. I am Psychelic. Yours host Joe Heschmeier is our guest. And we're talking about the Eucharist and we're trying to cover every objection we can think of to the Eucharist with Joe. And a lot of them, of course, come from Protestant Christians because this is one of the topics that divides Protestant Christians from one another and from us. Yeah, from one another and from us. Right. This is a dividing issue, although it does not to some degree. I guess in recent years it has divided some Catholics from other Catholics. I guess always there's within the church, there's always been people who, like the priest that you quoted earlier, said, I believe in the real presence but not transubstantiation. But that's. I mean, it's more than a billion people. But generally, what you're looking at is Orthodox and Catholic Christians maintaining the older view that Christ is really truly present in the Eucharist and the more modern Christian view that this is symbolic.

[B]

If I can say something on that, this is something we should take very seriously. If it's true, as St. Paul says, that we are one body because we partake of the one loaf, one arton, the Eucharist should be the source of unity among Christians. And if you come along and say, actually, everyone before me got the theology of the Eucharist wrong and everyone needs to change their view to this view, you are creating the Eucharist as a source of division, but you're doing that by upsetting where there had been unanimity and agreement among Christians and trying to force them into a new understanding of the Eucharist where they have to agree not just with the words of Christ, but also with your interpretation of the words of Christ.

[A]

All right, well, that brings me to an objection I was going to get to in a minute, but I'll slip it in then at this point because, oh, okay, Mr. Catholic, the Eucharist is a sign of unity, or a source of unity is the source of unity. But you don't let me go to communion in your church. You don't share communion with me. So you're the One that's dividing, Mr. Dividy Pants.

[B]

Yeah. So this is how Christians have done it for 2,000 years, and there's a very good reason for it. Remember what St. Paul says about receiving the Eucharist unworthily? Now I just throw out there, if the Eucharist is just a symbol, then the idea that receiving it unworthily might damn you seems wildly disproportionate. If I'm like, oh, sigh, you don't like that analogy I gave, well, you can go to hell, you'd think that was a totally unhinged kind of overreaction, right? Well, similarly, if this is just like one image to help you appreciate that Christ was bodily or that he had teachings or whatever you think at a symbolic level. First, it's not a particular. I mean, I hate to say it's not a particularly good or effective symbol. It's not clear to anyone else how this is going to. How does this mean Jesus is teaching? Like, if that's just what the symbol is for and there are plenty of other ways you could show his. Like if you're just trying to give a symbol of his flesh and blood, then have religious art. And if religious art is bad because it's bad to have a symbol because we might mistake it for Christ, well, then the Eucharist would be that. So you have a series of things wrong with that whole view. Let's get back then to this idea of, well, okay, if it is really Christ, then it makes sense that receiving unworthily might damn you because you're approaching the throne of God unworthily. Well, this is why the early Christians were very careful about bringing outsiders in. And this is extremely biblical in the Old Testament with the Passover, which obviously prefigures the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a Passover meal. The Passover was only open to Gentiles who were willing to get circumcised and be brought into the covenant people of God. So by all means, anyone who's not Catholic, we want you to be able to receive the Eucharist. You just have to first become a baptized Catholic. St. Justin Martyr write in the mid-1100s, puts it like this. He says, this food is called among us Eucharistia, the Eucharist of which no one is allowed to partake. But the man who won believes the things which we teach are true. And two, who has been washed with the washing, that is for the remission of sins and under regeneration, that's rebirth. And three, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. So if you want to receive the Eucharist in the early Church, you have to believe the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the Church, you have to have been renewed in the baptismal regeneration. And three, you have to be living as a Catholic. And if those three things are not true of you, whether you're Catholic or Protestant or whatever you are, you're not in a position now to receive the Eucharist. If you're a Catholic who believes in the Church teaching, but you're not living like it, go to confession. If you're an unbaptized person and you believe the teachings of Jesus and you want to live like that, get baptized like whatever it is that is keeping you from just fully entering into this. All I'm pointing out is this is not some new Catholic thing. In response to the Reformation, Catholics are continuing to do what we've done from the time of Christ forward. And closed communion is very clearly the teaching of the early Christians. I talk about this much more in depth and I believe in the Eucharist is really. No, actually, I believe that's actually in the early church was the Catholic Church. I have a whole section on how closed communion is very clearly what the early Christians believed under the principle that Jesus lays out don't give what is holy to the dogs. The dogs was a somewhat derogatory way that the Jews would refer to non believing outsiders. And you don't give the most sacred holy thing. You don't just say, hey, I got my gentile cousin coming in town, I'm going to take him inside the Holy of holies. Yeah, it doesn't happen like if this is really holy, if this is really Jesus, then you approach with reverence and caution and you don't have open communion.

[A]

Okay, how about this one? We do hear this a lot on the Internet. Look, you look at the Eucharist and what you see is an imitation of pagan rituals that have been. This is just, this is just Catholics doing. They're pagans basically. And then you get the, you know, like I think it's Dionysus. Dionysus is in the wine.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And some Greek, I mean some Roman God, Isis. Oh, then there's Mithras. Right. So the illusion Isis is Egyptian. Yeah. So Isis, I think that there was a bread and wine or a wheat and wine ritual. So look, it's obvious what's going on here. You're just incorporating a pagan thing. You're just stealing from the pagans.

[B]

So there's plenty of things to say in response to that. I'm gonna say a few of them. Number one, many of these alleged similarities are just literally not true. Like when you hear a list of all these pagan gods who were born on December 25, a good response is just to be like, show me any pagan literature that talks about them being born on December 25th. Like show me the evidence of that or show me where they're being offered bread and wine. So you can find plenty of 19th century scholars and very heavy quotation marks who will make these claims. You can find plenty of fringe Protestants who will make these claims. Alexander Hislop is a notorious 19th century Protestant who tried to claim that all of these different teachings were derived from Babylonian religion. And you can't find a footnote to an actual Babylonian source proving any of this. It is just a myth that people are just mindlessly parodying without.

[A]

These are myths about myths is what you're saying. Like he's making up his own myths.

[B]

Yeah, I mean even the Egyptian ones, you might say myth about Ra Like Mithra, Nevermind. Anyway, so it was a good tribute, layered and terrible. The second thing is there are some very broad similarities, meaning you might have food and drink in different religious celebrations. That's not a borrowing, that's just a similarity. And the similarities are so big. If you're like, well, your priests wear hats and our Pope wears a hat. You must have taken that from the Pope. Anyone is going to look at that and say it's absurd to conclude, yeah, the things that they have in common are candles.

[A]

Well, candles are the way the world was lit for thousands of years.

[B]

I literally was reading yesterday a Jehovah's Witness argument against birthdays by saying, well, you know, pagans often use candles in their rights. It's like, yeah, everybody used candles to light their home. Right.

[A]

Because they did them in the evening. That's why they use candles.

[B]

It's like saying, oh, you have a light on your phone. Demon worshipers sometimes use a flashlight on their phone. That is not a smart or insightful sort of take. The third mistake is thinking that when there are similarities, because occasionally there are, assuming that Christianity is borrowing from paganism rather than the other way around. And so, for instance, the first time you see a festivity to sol Invictus on December 25th is in 354 after like 150 years after the earliest evidence of Christians acknowledging Jesus's birthday on December 25th. And so if there is borrowing there, it's possible, you know, there's only so many days on the calendar, there's a bunch of different pagans. Sometimes things are going to happen to fall on the same day. But if there is a borrowing, the pagan one we know came much later.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so pagans borrowed from Christianity. Assuming that paganism is older is often just obviously erroneous. You know, like Norse religion and all of that we're accused of taking from. But there's no evidence of any Norse beliefs. I mean, presumably the people who became the Norse believed something. We have no idea what the religion was until like 800, 900 years after the time of Christ because they don't keep written records. So assuming that their stuff was like thousands and thousands of years old is just romanticizing paganism. It's not good history. I mean, in the same way that like Wiccans believe stuff that they kind of invented in the 20th century and just pretend is really old and they're just kind of making stuff up. So a lot of the stuff that looks like Christianity is because it's borrowed from Christianity, not Christianity borrowed from paganism. And there's a great example of this in regards to the Eucharist, because Justin Martyr, who I mentioned before this is first apology. We're still in chapter 66 after describing the Christian teaching on the Eucharist, he says, for that bread. Oh, sorry. Which he says, this is my blood and give it to them alone. So he's describing the whole Eucharist, and he says, which the wicked devils have imitated and the Mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done for that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated. You either know or can learn. So he's arguing there's a bread and water ritual within Mithraic kind of cultic religion that is copied from Christianity. Now he's writing so early on that if Christianity is stealing this from Mithras, well, number one, we should see some evidence of that. We don't. We don't see any pre Christian evidence of them doing anything like that. So he's explicitly saying quite early on in the history of Christianity, yeah, the pagans are copying us. And even then the copying is only sort of like the Eucharist. They're just doing bread and water. I think it'd be perfectly legitimate to say that either the Mithraic worshipers are copying Christianity, or bread and water is so generic that it's only a little bit like bread and wine. And. And you kind of get to the level of generality. Where are we really going to say anytime anyone uses food, that therefore it must be stolen from someone else?

[A]

Right, right, right. And that there is a way. I do think that one of the things that we're taught as Catholics, and I wonder if this is true, is that, you know, if Christ became incarnate, he did so to relate to us as we are naturally. And so things like food and drink and fire and water and oil, all of these are natural things that he raised. We're not saying that. What we're saying is you should expect this in light of the Incarnation, that Christ would use the things of this world for supernatural purposes.

[B]

You're right. Christ turned bread and wine into his body and blood every time he ate a meal, that anytime he ate bread and drank wine, he turned it into his body and blood by virtue of the incarnation. And C.S. lewis makes this point in his book Miracles, that all of the miracles of. Of Jesus.

[A]

Oh, no, you got a few seconds.

[B]

All the miracles of Jesus copy things that the Father has done in the natural world, like turning bread or turning. Well, we'll get into it on the other half of the break. How about that? We will not go get my book. The Eucharist is really Jesus and I unpack it in much more depth there.

[A]

Nice pitch. Sorry to manage that clock a little bit better, but you're also going to have to get the early church. Was the Catholic Church, because you referenced that book as well. Joe Ashmire, thanks.

[B]

My pleasure.

[A]

Pleasure tackling all these objections. So we'll see you next time, God willing, right here on CATHOLIC ANSWERS live.