HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

Does John Gospel really teach that bread and wine turn into Jesus? No!
 
Roman Catholicism claims to believe that the Bible is the word of God - God is its author. It stakes its claim to be the one true Church on this doctrine.
 
John chapter 6 in the Bible has Jesus saying that he who comes to him will never hunger and who believes in him will never thirst. He said that he is the living bread come down from Heaven and that the bread he will give is his flesh for the life of the world. It will be noticed that his flesh did not come down from heaven, and that the bread which came down from heaven then must be a metaphor. The Jews murmured how can this man give us his flesh to eat. Jesus said that unless they munch his flesh and drink his blood they have no life in them and whoever munches his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life. He added that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink. He said the man who eats him will live because of him. Jesus said that he lives in whoever eats him.

This seems to support the Catholic fantasy that the priest turns bread and wine at communion into the body and blood of Christ so that they are not bread and wine anymore. The Church does not tell us that the language in other parts of the Bible which refers to the Church as part of Jesus Christ and his body sounds even more literal. The Bible uses very literal looking language in saying that the Church is the Body of Christ. It never gives any hint that this is metaphorical. Yet nobody says the Church is literally Jesus Christ. All take it as strong symbolism.
 
In the same gospel, Jesus said that he was the vine and the disciples were the branches. So they were all one body.
 
The apostle Paul taught that true Christians are parts of the body of Christ.
 
Jesus never says the man has to consciously eat the body and drink the blood. It is possible that if you just believe you are automatically fed because the Bible teaches that you are put right with God by faith alone. The Bible teaches a morality that we all fall short of. For example, Jesus said the most important commandment was to love God with all your heart and the second most important one was to love your neighbour as yourself. In other words, love God more than yourself or your neighbour. If you murder six million people and incinerate them in ovens it is not the hurting of people that should matter so much as that God is offended by it. This is so difficult that salvation can't have anything to do with earning or good works.
 
Eating the body of Jesus can't do anything for you. Drinking his blood can't do anything for you. You can eat and drink without digesting or assimilating them. Only assimilating the body and blood of Jesus might. Verse 57 may prove assimilation. There it says that just as Jesus lives because of the Father so he who eats Jesus will live because of him. Jesus is permeated by the Father and the Father is his origin. It is far closer than the closeness between us and food, the closeness of us living because of the food we assimilate. Jesus means that by assimilating him we live entirely because of his body and we become it. Assimilating Jesus is as close as the dependence of Jesus on his Father - we assimilate Jesus by becoming his body.
 
Jesus means when we are saved by him by faith we are fed with the body and blood of Jesus in the sense that we become them. We eat his body by becoming it. We drink his blood by our blood becoming his.
 
He commands that his blood be drunk. To drink Jesus' blood is not to drink Jesus so this is heavy symbolism.
 
He wouldn't say that he lives in the man who eats his body for that sounds strange. It sounds like a man saying he drives in the car he drives. He would talk that way if he meant we become his body making him live in us. The meaning would be as follows. His spirit is so close to us that our flesh is his flesh and our blood is his blood. This interpretation is shown to be possible by other parts of the New Testament.
 
Because of the human liking for idols, Rome takes John 6 as saying the bread and wine of communion change into Jesus Christ. As a result, communion wafers are worshipped as God and carried about in procession.
 
We conclude that the change of bread and wine into Jesus cannot be shown from the Bible. Is John 6 actually opposed to the doctrine?
 
JOHN 6
 
In John 6 Jesus after multiplying bread for the Jews tells them to seek the bread that takes away all hunger and that his flesh is the bread he will give. They ask how this can give his flesh to eat but he tells them they need to eat his body and drink his blood to have salvation and never hunger again. Roman Catholicism says this refers to the Eucharist and the bread and wine being changed or transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, despite the fact that there was no Last Supper, when Jesus shared bread and wine saying they were his body and blood. John 6 is the only place in the Bible that might teach the transubstantiation idea.
 
The Christians take John 6 to be Jesus symbolically saying he can be eaten and drunk to illustrate the need for having a relationship with him as the saviour who gave his body and blood on the cross for sinners so that one might be saved.
 
The Catholics take John 6 literally saying it refers to their miracle of transubstantiation. They argue that when the Jews said among themselves that they wondered how Jesus could give them his flesh to eat and when Jesus didn’t correct them that Jesus agreed with their literal interpretation for he kept saying that they had to eat his body and added that they had to drink his blood too.
 
Jesus had said that he is the living bread come down from Heaven and that the bread he will give to save the world is his flesh. But Jesus is not bread. The Eucharist doctrine teaches that bread becomes Jesus and ceases to exist so it is not a matter of Jesus becoming bread!
 
WHY JOHN 6 CANNOT MEAN TRANSUBSTANTIATION

John 6 does not teach the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation for these reasons.

*  In John 6 Jesus preaches in a Jewish meeting house at Capernaum. Why didn’t he preach it in the Temple or at a religious feast or Passover meal?   The context isn't right for a sacramental or eucharistic interpretation.
 
* The Jews sternly required that flesh for eating have no blood in it. The blood had to be drained off. Blood was sacred and the symbol of life. Thus Jesus saying you can eat my flesh meant eat my corpse if you take him literally. Also then, drink my blood meant drink my life. This contradicts the Catholic doctrine that the living body of Jesus is received in communion. It teaches that the bread is both the body and blood of Jesus. And it teaches that the wine is also the body and blood of Jesus. But Jesus separates them.
 
* Jesus said he was the manna of life like the manna of the Hebrews was essential for their lives. We are told in the Old Testament that God gave Israel manna which was "bread" that fell from Heaven to feed them in the desert. The Eucharist is not as essential for spiritual life as the manna was for physical. If it is then anybody who does not receive the Eucharist will be damned. The Church has never taught this.
 
The manna was not bread and did not really fall down from Heaven. It appeared overnight on the ground by natural causes. Jesus would have known this. Even his use of the manna was about symbolism. 
 
* The psalms and the Old Testament say that God gave the Hebrews the manna. The Jews Jesus was preaching to must have thought that Moses gave the manna. He corrected their error for he said that it is not Moses who gives the bread from Heaven the manna but God the Father in Heaven. In a passage full of metaphors and symbols this is important. He was saying that the bread is not human bread. God's bread from Heaven is invisible food and has nothing to do with communion wafers.
 
Moses prayed for the manna and God gave it. Do the Jews mean that Moses gave them the bread by praying for it? Jesus says the real bread from Heaven is not given by Moses but by God. He rejects the view that anybody has to ask God to give it to you - God gives it to you directly. God even gave the manna of his own accord and it was not because of Moses or his prayer. There is no room in this for the notion of Catholic priests giving you the bread from Heaven, the wafer turned into Jesus by their prayer. There are no mediators.
 
Jesus is using the manna as a parallel for the bread he will give that is his flesh. It will then not be obtained by anybody's prayer but from God directly. This understanding demolishes the Mass which presupposes that prayer is needed through which God turns the bread into Jesus.
 
* Jesus said that those who eat his bread will never hunger and it is his flesh and he who eats it will live forever.
 
Therefore it is permanent nourishment or permanent sustenance. The Catholic Eucharist is not permanent nourishment for Jesus only feeds you until the communion wafer is turned into ordinary food in the stomach which takes about ten or fifteen minutes. If he stays behind after the wafer is gone then it is impossible to see what the Eucharist would need to be received over and over again for.
 
When Jesus says you will never hunger if you eat him and when there is no hint that you need to feed on him over and over again as in the Catholic Mass - the chapter indicates that one feeding with him lasts forever. The Jews asked Jesus in the chapter to be fed always.
 
* The passage starts off with Jesus saying he is the bread of life using evident symbolism for he is not bread. At this verse Catholics believe he changes the subject to transubstantiation. “I [myself] am this Living Bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this Bread, he will live forever; and also the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh” (v51). So, the first part is symbolism and the second part is literal according to Catholics. But you can’t use symbolic language and then switch to literal language that looks like symbolic talk without warning. Jesus would not have done that for that would only confuse his hearers. He would have said that he was speaking literally now and that the bread he will give is his flesh.
 
There is supposed to be symbolism in the second part of the sentence because the Catholics say the Eucharist is not bread but is the flesh of Jesus and Jesus calls it bread here. So, it is symbolically bread.
 
* The doctrine of transubstantiation or the real presence implies that what looks like bread and wine to unbelievers is really the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Bible forbids lying under all circumstances and by implication it forbids deception. It forbids disguise and Jesus is disguising himself as bread and wine. The Church may reply that we are told by Jesus that it is him not bread and wine and if we won’t believe him then we can hardly say he deceived us. But who is saying it? John who wrote years after the events. And owing to the gospel being only assumed to be John’s work it is doubtful that he did say it. We don’t even know who he was or if he was really an apostle. John saying Jesus said it is not the same as Jesus saying it. We are no better off. To the crime against God of idolatry, the Mass adds the crime of accusing God of double standards.
 
* It seems to some that it is a mistake to say that Jesus’ words, “My flesh is true and genuine food,” in John 6 disprove the mystical changing of the bread into Jesus on the grounds that they are in the present tense and the Eucharist hadn’t been instituted yet. Jesus may be saying that he is ready to be our real food. You can point to a living cow and say that it is food indeed. It is food but not prepared food. But against this it seems probable that Jesus meant prepared food for that is food in the fullest and clearest sense of the word for the word translated eat when he said eat my flesh is really the word for gnaw or chew. But then it would have to be just spiritual food and not real eating of the body of Jesus. Why? Because even then according to transubstantiation believers Jesus was not physically prepared food for they teach that only the resurrection body of Jesus could take on the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Also Jesus in the Gospel of John that the Holy Spirit cannot come until he ascends to Heaven first (John 6:62 and 7:38 and 16:7). He says a few verses after saying that his flesh is real food that he hasn’t ascended yet. His flesh cannot be food then until the Spirit comes for the Spirit is the presence of God the true food of the soul. The present tense then indicates symbolism. Jesus is real food for the soul here and now but not in the form of bread. He then says the flesh is useless and can’t give life without the spirit which means his own flesh for the context is about him ascending bodily into Heaven to send the Spirit. Jesus corrected anybody that thought he was literally going to feed people with his body and blood.
 
* Ego Eimi
 
John 6:35 has Jesus saying "I am the living bread" - this is ego eimi ho artos tes zoes in the original. Ego Eimi is used in John a lot for I am.
 
John 8:24: ean gar me pistuesete hoti ego eimi
John 8:28: tote gnosesthe hoti ego eimi
John 8:58: prin Abraam genethai ego eimi
John 13:19: hina pisteusete hotan genetai ego eimi
John 18:5: legei autois Ego eimi
John 18:6: hos oun eipen autois Ego eimi
John 18:8: eipon humin hoti ego eimi
 
Ego eimi has been linked to God saying in the Old Testament that I am who I am. It is thought by some but by no means all that Jesus is calling himself God by using those words. The words in the Old Testament are taken by Christians to refer to God as in the spirit who is existence itself. God is existence. If they are right then Jesus is saying that as God he is the bread of life. He is not necessarily the bread of life as man. If so, then bread of life needs a spiritual interpretation. John 6 is then about spiritual nourishment.
 
* John 6:57 has Jesus saying that as man he lives by the Father so he who eats Jesus will live by Jesus. Jesus means that he lives by the Father as man for the Father creates him and keeps him in existence. So Jesus creates the person and keeps that person in existence who eats him. What does he mean? How can eating Jesus keep you in existence if God is keeping you in existence?  Obviously there is symbolism. Many observe that John 6 never clearly mentions grace. It is always about life being sustained. Catholics assume life means or includes grace. Many argue that grace would be the central theme if the chapter were really about a sacrament for a sacrament is all about the grace. Is Jesus using hyperbole - you really need me to live in every sense of the word, even to live in this world and in the next? That makes the texts about eating Jesus' flesh and blood to be really about depending on Jesus. If a woman eats her husband's flesh she does not need his flesh literally. It is about her needing him. If you turn to John 17:5 Jesus wants the glory he had BEFORE the universe was even made or before he became man. He is looking back. This does not fit the Catholic notion that Jesus planned to rise again in his body so as to be able to leave us his body and blood.
 
OBJECTION: Jesus is fully man and fully God. It is wrong to assume that 6:57 is about Jesus depending on God for existence as man. Jesus is referring to the fact that there is one God who is three persons. The Son proceeds from the Father. Without the Father there would be no Son. Jesus even as God and not as man depends on God. Many reject this interpretation for it makes no sense to say that God depends on nothing to exist and then to say that the Son depends on the Father. The trinity doctrine is irrational but it is improved by the thought that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three self-existent or self-dependent persons.
 
* Jesus using the present tense and saying things like “unless you eat my body”, which is an invitation to the Jews does not prove that he had no intention of turning bread and wine into himself. Some say it does for there was no Eucharist then. But it was available in the sense that Jesus could have given them his body and blood there and then. However the Church says only the baptised could receive the Eucharist. But Jesus is inviting Jews here! If baptism is needed then Jesus did not mean transubstantiation and the present tense would disprove the Eucharistic interpretation.
 
* “Jesus said to them, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, you cannot have any life in you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood” (verse 53). Life means the fullness of life and grace that comes from being in a relationship with God that endures for all eternity. Catholics say he was only saying you cannot be saved if you know you need to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood in the Eucharist but refuse to do it. But the Jews didn’t know. Nothing in John 6 hints that they were true believers or had any real reason to believe Jesus was the Son of God. Their hostility proves they were not. So Jesus was saying that unless they ate and drank him they had no hope in the full literal and rigid sense. The Church never taught that the Eucharist is that necessary for salvation or life which indicates that the passage was not taken in the Catholic sense in the early centuries of the Church. It would be madness and blasphemy to say that you could go to Hell for not eating communion wafers as if the presence of God and Jesus inside you without communion meant nothing. Even Jesus declared people saved without the Eucharist meaning that eating his body or drinking his blood stands for accepting him as the saviour who sacrificed his body and blood for you. Jesus didn’t say you won’t have life in you if you don’t eat and drink but that you won’t have any life in you. This emphasis is striking and tells us a lot. It tells us that Jesus was saying there is no grace or happiness or relationship with God at all in a person who does not eat his body and blood. It is so obvious that he couldn’t have meant that if you take the eating and drinking as physical acts that it is undeniable that eating and drinking must stand for getting strength and changing your life through loving Jesus and being loved by him as your saviour who spilled his blood on your behalf.  The Jews would have taken the words “unless you” literally for what other way would you have taken it if you had been in that audience? That was how they were meant then. To take eat and drink as referring to communion makes the passage so ridiculous that it must be rejected. This was all said by Jesus in reply to the Jews when they asked how he could give his flesh to eat which made it clear that if they were taking him to be referring to real eating they were wrong!
 
* Jesus said that whoever eats his flesh lives in him and he lives in that person. Lives means takes up residence in. Jesus staying in you fifteen minutes is not him living in you. He links this taking up residence in you with eating him. If he meant he was literally giving you his body then this excludes the Catholic doctrine of the Mass. Somehow God is able to give your soul the literal body of Jesus invisibly and without sacraments. The Catholic Church would have no philosophical or logical problem with that view but it says it is false for it contradicts its doctrine that the Mass is needed and is the centre of Christian life. The Church is contradicted by its Bible so true Christians then eat Jesus all the time. Jesus then is not present in the communion wafer of Mass.

The Catholic response is that Jesus means that if you eat his body though this feeding stops as soon as the wafer disintegrates, Jesus' spirit stays in your soul and lives in it. This is a very forced interpretation. It is like saying that, "If John drinks for a little while in my pub he lives in it", makes sense. "If John drinks 24/7 in my pub then he lives in it", is what we would expect.

Catholics teach that you must already have Jesus's spirit living in your soul if you are to eat his body so they don't believe their own response.

The desire to have Jesus in the form of bread actually smacks of idolatry and a hankering towards it. It means that the Church rejects and despises the friendly Jesus of the gospel of John who does not do things like that but mystically unites his body to his people in all times and all places. It means there is more concern for getting people to believe Jesus is in the wafer than in them.

If Jesus as God dwells in his people that is the only kind of presence that matters. His body and blood would be immaterial. They add nothing. So why the fuss about how great eating the body of Jesus and drinking his blood at Mass?
 
* After the change of bread into the body of Jesus and wine into his blood no physical change can be detected. The Church says that the change still happens. What makes the bread bread is gone and replaced with what makes Jesus' body Jesus' body. This is not a physical change. The Church says there is a change but not a physical one. This denies that the physical Jesus really was his body - Jesus is really the ghostly thing that makes his body his body. In 1 John we read condemnations of the antichrists who said that Jesus was not a real man - those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh. The same person wrote the gospel and the letter so the Catholic doctrine should be rejected. 1 John implies that the Mass blasphemes Jesus so severely and is so anti-Jesus that nobody has the objective right to attend Mass. Also, Protestants are betraying their faith by attending Mass. To attend Mass implies that you think it is not bad enough to stay away from. The Protestant cannot argue, "I attend Mass because I have some agreement with the Catholic faith. I attend to honour the good teachings of the Church that I agree with. I do not attend to imply that I think one faith is as good as another." That would only hold if Catholicism didn't make serious errors in the Mass. Even the Nazis have some good teachings - you don't invite them to your parish hall and say, "Oh I disagree with them a lot but they have so much good to offer and it is the good I want to focus on." You know by instinct that to do that is to condone them. You know you are making an excuse. You don't argue that you give your child a hardcore porn to teach them about sex and that they can get some good out of it and that makes it right.
 
* The John 6 passage comes so close to transubstantiation language and still does not teach it. Doesn’t that show that it probably opposes the doctrine? It is a clear hint.
 
* If Jesus had been talking to Greek students of Aristotle who knew of his doctrine that the things we can sense about bread are not the bread but the real bread is something called substance that has no parts we might have a little reason to think that he was talking about transubstantiation. Even then Aristotle's students would have agreed with Aristotle that though the physical things we can sense about the bread are not the bread but the bread is something different it does not mean that the something different can become Jesus Christ without any physical change being apparent.
 
To Jesus' Jewish listeners, if bread becomes flesh it cannot keep the physical qualities of bread and still change. Also, Roman Catholicism itself cannot explain transubstantiation. How does it know that the change prevents the bread being bread and also the body of Jesus Christ at the same time? If substance is invisible and undetectable then we don't know what it is only that it is. We don't know what it can do! Also bread is only what we call a collection of things that are not bread. Chemicals and minerals and so on. The calcium in the bread is not bread. The bread does not have a single substance at all - it is made up of countless billions of substances. Yet the Church says that if a priest tries to transubstantiate a calcium supplement into Jesus it won't work. The magic only works with bread. John 6:44-46 has Jesus stating that the Father has already taught the people before him. Jesus also said in these verses that the prophets predicted that the people will be taught by God and whoever has heard the Father comes to Jesus. This hints that what he has to say about the bread of life and eating his flesh and drinking his blood must be interpreted by looking for clues in the Old Testament. It says nothing about bread and wine turning into the flesh and blood of Jesus.
 
* The notorious doctrine that the bread physically turns into flesh and the wine turns into real blood and that God makes us sense that they are still bread and wine to make them palatable fits John 6 better than transubstantiation. In other words, the flesh is really flesh in every way but God miraculously changes our perception so that it still seems to be bread and tastes like bread. In this view, the bread loses the appearance of bread and this change is hidden from our senses. Catholicism teaches that the physical characteristics do not change but this doctrine says that they do but we are unable to sense or detect the changes. The difference is that with transubstantiation the physical aspects of bread and wine are real and do not change with the other doctrine God changes sense perception so that though there is a slab of raw human meat on the altar it looks like bread to us. It would mean that taking communion is cannibalism literally. The Church rejected the incredible doctrine that the substance and appearances change into the physical body and blood of Jesus at the Fourth Lateran Council and favoured transubstantiation. Even if the Bible does say the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus it never indicates anything like transubstantiation. That is a doctrine that appeared among philosophers centuries later. In the Israelite culture, there was not an inkling of such a philosophy. Some Christian writers did claim that communion is literal eating of the literal Jesus and is cannibalism. There are even alleged miracles where the wafer turned into heart muscle. The Church says that the Bible must never be interpreted in an absurd way. It seems to be depending on that principle to deny the alternative doctrine to transubstantiation. But how do you know that it is worse to believe in transubstantiation or the other doctrine? If miracles happen is the other doctrine really that bad? If transubstantiation is impossible then the other doctrine may be true. And most Catholics do not understand transubstantiation and think that when the wafer is put on their tongue that their tongue touches raw bleeding flesh and that God gives the illusion that it is a wafer. So you cannot say the cannibalistic doctrine was abandoned as it would disgust people.
 
* The book of Acts states that after Jesus went to Heaven the apostles maintained the Jewish rule of not consuming blood. The apostles themselves would not have understood the concept of transubstantiation. If they believed that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Jesus they didn't have the philosophy or the theology to know if that meant taking communion was not the same as cannibalism. The Roman Church says the early Church only got the basics and it was left to the Church fathers to understand and explain doctrines further. The Catholic Church claims that though the bread is Jesus and the wine his blood to partake of communion is not cannibalism for the appearances of bread and wine remain. It is the appearance of bread not the flesh of Jesus that is eaten physically. It is the appearance of wine that nourishes the body physically - there is no actual physical contact with blood.
 
If the apostles said the wine was the blood of Jesus that does not indicate that they had any philosophical explanation like the Catholics do for what this means. It wasn't until Lateran 4 in 1215 AD that the Church forbade the opinion of some that the wine only looked like wine as in an illusion and was actually blood. Instead the Church taught that there is no illusion but the wine is not wine anymore but blood. The wine changes into blood without the smell or taste etc of the wine changing. If Jesus meant that bread is really his body and wine is his blood then he was certainly permitting people to believe in cannibalising him until 1215AD!
 
We conclude that John 6 knows nothing of transubstantiation. Since it comes close to the language of transubstantiation and then excludes it, it is obvious that it is hinting that this miracle cannot happen. Even if the passage seems to teach transubstantiation John might have put down what Jesus said without knowing himself what Jesus was on about. The words might be inspired by God but that does not mean we can understand them. If that is the case then it is seriously wrong to create a Eucharist of Transubstantiation on the words of Jesus in John 6.
 
BAD PRO-TRANS ARGUMENTS
 
Here are some appalling arguments for transubstantiation. The Roman Catholic Church believes that Jesus revealed the doctrine in John 6 and it is this we are concerned with now.
 
* The word for eat in John 6 means chew rather than eat. Sarx the word for flesh and body is physical flesh. Catholics pounce on them as proof that Jesus meant transubstantiation. But strong and physical words can be used in symbolic fashion. Jesus said chew, not eat, my body. Chewing the body of the Lord cannot be more important than eating it so the proof fails. How could Jesus save you by letting you chew his body? Besides, at what point do you become one with Jesus in the Eucharist? Is it when it goes into your tongue, or when it goes down your throat or when you start to turn it into your own body in the stomach? This problem shows the utter absurdity of Roman Catholicism.
 
* Jesus says that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. He means spiritually it is food and drink for he had no interest in feeding our bodies with his body but our souls. Food is anything that nourishes and he means the food for the soul. The soul does not need flesh and blood so he means the soul is fed by the grace of the flesh and blood. You can only take him to mean physical food if you have reason to believe that he was speaking literally for it is not enough on its own and no such reason exists.
 
Some say that John 6 did not mean the Mass for even if the bread and wine become Christ we do not eat Christ but merely the appearances of bread. We don’t drink his blood but the accidents of wine. Harming the Eucharist does not physically harm Christ. No physical contact is made. When the wafer is in your mouth it is not the body of Christ that touches your tongue but the appearance or accident of bread. But is it right to say that one eats Christ when he is the bread though no physical contact is made? Of course not. To eat Christ you have to assimilate him. But this doesn’t happen in the Eucharist. If bread was put inside a plastic ball and you swallowed the ball does it follow that you ate the bread? You swallowed it but didn’t eat it. John 6 means assimilating the body and blood of Christ spiritually. To take any other meaning is absurd. And if bread is not its appearances or accidents then it follows that even if you have a loaf a day you never ate bread in your life – you only ate its appearances. They nourished you not the bread. The Catholic Church if it really believes in transubstantiation should not be saying you ever hugged your child. It was the appearances of the child you hugged the child is an ethereal substance that you cannot get at or touch. Do you see the utter madness of the Catholic Church?
 
* It is a fact that in Palestine at the time, the expression, “Eat flesh and drink blood,” meant to do a person grave physical harm. Catholics argue that if the Jews took Jesus’ talk to be figurative that would have been the meaning they would have taken, that Jesus was asking for a violent and bloody destruction. They think it is mad to take Jesus to mean, "If you do me great violence and persecute me to death you will have eternal life and I will raise you up on the last day." But if you take Jesus to mean the crucifixion which is necessary for salvation then there is no problem. It does make sense.

And if eat flesh and drink blood meant do violence and the Jews did not take him that way then they knew he was not speaking literally. Their question about how Jesus could give his flesh to eat was sarcastic. 

The Jews did not take him to be speaking in a figurative way when they asked how he could give his flesh to eat and let him alone. You don’t ask silly questions like that for if somebody says, “Kill me,” people don’t quibble about what method they will use. They knew that Jesus did not mean what the expression means. Also, 2 Samuel 23:17 records that drinking blood is an expression of gaining benefit from violent death even if it was not the drinker’s fault. Psalm 27:2 speaks of enemies coming to eat the flesh of the psalmist. So, the expressions about drinking blood and eating flesh do not necessarily have to have the connotations that Catholics would like them to have. Had the Jews taken Jesus literally they would not have wondered how he could give his flesh to eat for they would have thought he meant that he would be killed and then be cooked up as food. Incidentally, there are many problems in determining the exacting wording of the New Testament. There has been so much textual corruption. The Christians boast that the corruptions do not affect any doctrine. Yes they do for Jesus promised that heaven and earth would pass away before his words could pass which is a doctrine and he claimed to know the future and to be able to preserve his words. When something could have been omitted from the New Testament that we don’t know of and certainly all the early scholars and copyists thought it had happened when they added in new verses it follows that Jesus was a false prophet. But the point here is that if John is hard to understand the reason might be that a verse was dropped.
  
* Protestants often assume that in John 6:27 that they have a proof against the doctrine of transubstantiation. Here, Jesus says the Jews must stop working for the food that decomposes but the food he gives doesn’t and satisfies forever. Since the Eucharist can decompose it cannot be the body and blood of Jesus. But the Catholic replies that says that only the outward appearances of the consecrated things decompose while the inner substance of Christ remains inviolate. But when we have to keep receiving the Eucharist clearly then the Eucharist contradicts the suggestion given by Jesus that his food fills and satisfies forever. The Protestants are right. Jesus has in mind food that gave no permanent benefits or nourishment and criticises it for that and so the Catholic Eucharist which always leaves the recipient in need of a refill is no better.

THE MASS CONTRADICTS "GOD IS SPIRIT SO WORSHIP HIM ONLY IN SPIRIT"

John 4:24 has Jesus telling a woman that God is spirit and all who worship him can only do so in spirit and in truth.  This is inspired by the ten commandments - they command that you worship God without any kind of image.  The commandment bans bowing before or serving images.  Catholicism does serve images by enshrining the communion wafer!

John has Jesus telling Nicodemus that what comes from flesh is flesh and what comes from spirit is spirit.   Here he is clear that the two are fundamentally separate.  The idea of bread becoming Jesus' flesh as spiritual food contradicts that dichotomy. 

SIRACH 24

This chapter of the Bible prompted the John tales about Jesus being the vine and the bread of life who is our spiritual food.  This is a hint that the tales are metaphors. 

Like a vine I caused loveliness to bud, and my blossoms became glorious and abundant fruit.

“Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce.

For the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey, and my inheritance sweeter than the honeycomb.

Those who eat me will hunger for more, and those who drink me will thirst for more.

Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame, and those who work with my help will not sin.”

Conclusion
 
John 6 does not teach transubstantiation. In fact it declares that to attempt the miracle, to celebrate Mass, is a grave sin and totally opposed to understanding the gospel. Transubstantiation is an unusual and strange idea. It is a very vague and difficult doctrine. It needs to be taught with extreme clarity. Jesus didn’t say, “God has the power to do anything. He can turn bread into flesh while it remains seeming to be bread.” Without this clarity we cannot assume Jesus taught the doctrine.