When God Said “Eat Me.” The Command More Offensive Than a Twitter Feed
One of the most “absurd” propositions confronting human reason in Catholic doctrine is the claim that an otherwise ordinary piece of bread—becomes nothing less than the Creator of the universe, Jesus Christ Himself. To the unbeliever or skeptic, this appears impossible or even laughable—a stumbling block to logic. G.K. Chesterton famously noted that paradox is often the mark of truth: a Puritan “may think it blasphemous that God should become a wafer,” but if one accepts the Incarnation (God becoming man), it is inconsistent to deem the Eucharist’s miracle impossible. Denying that Christ can be present under bread and wine effectively denies “the words of Christ, the tradition of the Church, the power of God... and the goodness of the created world itself.”
To human reason alone, transubstantiation is madness. Yet the Catholic does not shrink from this seeming absurdity. Instead, the Church insists: this is faith – not an abandonment of reason, but a trust in God who transcends reason, especially when He reveals mystical truths that lie beyond the reach of our senses. Far from being anti-intellectual, belief in the Eucharist requires the intellect to humbly admit its limits and to be perfected by faith.
Scriptural Foundations of the Real Presence
The Catholic claim rests first on the literal words of Christ in Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus did not speak symbolically. In the Douay-Rheims translation we read: “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body” See Matthew 26:26. He did not say “this represents my body,” but rather emphatically “This is my body.” In verse 28, He likewise identifies the chalice of wine with “my blood of the new testament”. These words, spoken by Truth Incarnate, form the bedrock of Eucharistic faith.
Jesus had already prepared His disciples to take these words literally. In the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, Christ shocked His audience by declaring: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven…and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world” John 6:52. The Jews were scandalized: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” John 6:53. Rather than softening His claim, Jesus reinforced it: “Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” John 6:54. Many disciples found this teaching intolerable – “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” – and left Him because of it See John 6:61 and John 6:67. Notably, Jesus did not call them back to explain it was only a metaphor. He let them go, indicating that they understood Him correctly: He meant exactly what He said. Saint Peter, though perhaps as perplexed as the others, stayed because of trust: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life”. Peter’s act of faith in that moment prefigures the faith Catholics are called to have in Christ’s Eucharistic word.
St. Paul reinforces the literal interpretation. Writing to the Corinthians, he warns that “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” 1 Cor. 11:27. One cannot be “guilty” of merely disrespecting a symbol; to profane the Eucharist is to profane Christ Himself. Paul further asks believers to “discern the body” lest they eat and drink judgment upon themselves. 1 Cor. 11:29 These biblical testimonies show that from the beginning the Eucharist was regarded as Jesus’ own Body and Blood under the forms of bread and wine – a reality demanding reverence.
The Early Church Fathers and the Eucharist
From Christianity’s earliest days, those taught by the Apostles took Christ at His word regarding the Eucharist. The Didache (c. 1st century), one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament, refers to the Eucharistic meal as holy and even sacrificial. It instructs: “Do not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name. For the statement of the Lord applies here: Do not give to dogs what is holy”. Didache Ch. 9 In a later section it urges Christians to confess sins before gathering so that “your sacrifice may be pure,” citing God’s promise in Malachi 1:11: “in every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice”. The earliest Christians clearly saw the Eucharist as far more than a symbolic meal – it was “holy” and a “pure sacrifice,” not to be received casually or by unbelievers.
Likewise, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote around 107 A.D. about certain heretics of his time: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again” Letter of Ignatius to Smyrnaeans, Ch. VII. Ignatius’ blunt statement — equating those who deny the Real Presence with a lack of true faith — shows how non-negotiable this doctrine was in the early Church. For Ignatius, the Eucharist is the same flesh that suffered on the Cross and was raised; to reject that is to cut oneself off from the Church.
St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 A.D.) similarly wrote that the food of the Eucharist “is not common bread nor common drink; but… the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”, taught by Apostolic tradition. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 66 And St. Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180 A.D.) argues against Gnostic skeptics by invoking the Eucharist’s realism. Since Christ preached salvation of the body, Irenaeus asks how the heretics can deny the resurrection of the flesh when “the bread, which is of the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly”. He insists that our bodies, nourished by Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, are no longer perishable in the end. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies Book IV, Ch. 18 In Irenaeus’ words, “having received the Word of God, [the bread] becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ”. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies Book V, Ch. 2 Such testimony from the Early Church Fathers demonstrates a unanimous early belief: the Eucharist truly is Christ’s Body and Blood, a mystical reality to be adored, not a mere symbol or memory. This belief, far from evolving in the Middle Ages, was present from the Church’s infancy.
St. Thomas Aquinas and the Metaphysics of Faith
How can an ordinary bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? To answer the “how,” the Church eventually gave a technical name: transubstantiation, meaning a complete change of substance. St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century provided a philosophical explanation using Aristotelian terms of “substance” and “accidents.” In simple terms, substance means the underlying reality of a thing (what it is), whereas accidents are the perceptible qualities (what it looks, tastes, or feels like). In the Eucharist, Aquinas taught, the substance of bread is wholly converted into the substance of Christ’s Body, and the substance of wine into His Blood, even while the appearances (accidents) of bread and wine remain. In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas states: “The complete substance of the bread is converted into the complete substance of Christ’s body, and the complete substance of the wine into the complete substance of Christ’s blood” Aquinas, Summa Theolgiae, Part III, Q.75. This startling change happens at the level of reality deeper than science can probe – it is a miracle accomplished by God’s omnipotence alone.
Aquinas readily acknowledges that nothing observable by our senses changes: “the presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority” See Id. Our taste and sight perceive only bread and wine’s qualities, but faith is certain of a new reality: Christ whole and entire is truly present. This surpasses reason’s natural reach, but does not contradict reason. God, who created all being, can change one created substance entirely into another without violating logic. Id.
Aquinas responds to the apparent absurdity with a principle: “faith is of things unseen.” In the Eucharist, Christ veils Himself under appearances of bread, just as in the Incarnation His divinity was veiled in true humanity. “Since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner,” the Angelic Doctor explains. Id. It is precisely the unseen, mysterious nature of the Eucharist that makes it an act of faith. For Aquinas, reason can say what is possible (it is not impossible for God to do this) and can clarify what happens (a substantial conversion), but faith alone certifies that it does happen, on Christ’s trustworthy word. “Faith has for its object things unseen,” he writes, so believing truths beyond human reason – such as the Eucharist – is not folly but fidelity. Id. Indeed, “this is not a natural change, but a supernatural one, effected by God’s power alone”. Faith does not abolish intellect; it perfects it by allowing the mind to assent to higher truths revealed by the all-knowing God. In Aquinas’s view, there can be no contradiction between faith and true reason, for the same God is author of both. When faced with a Eucharistic mystery that baffles the senses, the intellectual response is not to scoff, but to humbly say “God has spoken it; God can do it”.
The Magisterium: Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius X
Over the centuries, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has repeatedly affirmed the Real Presence and transubstantiation. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) used the term “transubstantiated”, and the doctrine was definitively articulated in the Council of Trent (1545–1563) in response to Protestant doubts. Trent taught that Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist, and it solemnly defined: “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation”. Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on Holy Eucharist This dogmatic definition leaves no wiggle room: after the priest speaks Christ’s words of consecration, what is present is Christ Himself, under the form (or “species”) of bread and wine. The appearances remain as merciful “veils” (so we are not horrified in a cannibalistic sense), but in substance the bread is gone – only Jesus’ Body remains; likewise, only His Blood remains under the appearance of wine. The Council of Trent thus crystallized what Catholics must hold: the Eucharist is not a mere symbol or metaphor but a Sacrament containing the reality of Christ.
In more recent times, Pope St. Pius X (reigned 1903–1914), often called “the Pope of the Eucharist,” took special care to promote devotion to this sublime mystery. He lowered the age of First Communion for children and encouraged the faithful to receive Communion frequently, even daily – something unusual in his era. Pius X saw the Eucharist as spiritual nourishment essential for the faithful. He taught that Devotion to the Eucharist is the most noble, because it has God as its object; it is the most profitable for salvation, because it gives us the Author of Grace. See Here, Here and Here. In other words, to adore and receive the Eucharist is to encounter God Himself and to receive the very source of all grace. This is not anti-intellectual emotionalism, but a profoundly theological insight: since the Eucharist is God (Jesus), Eucharistic faith and devotion connect the mind and heart with ultimate Truth and Goodness. Pius X also issued a catechism in which he made the doctrine plain for the average Catholic. Echoing Trent, he explained that after consecration, Jesus Christ is present “in reality, under the appearances of bread and wine.” He wanted all Catholics – young and old, simple and learned – to understand that in the tabernacles and on the altars of their churches dwells the same Jesus who reigns in heaven.
The Magisterium’s consistency on this point is striking. From the apostolic era to Pope Francis today, the Church has guarded this mystery of faith. Modern papal documents (like Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei and St. John Paul II’s 2003 encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia) continue to underline that faith in the Eucharist is essential and reasonable. Pope John Paul II, for instance, called the Eucharist “the mystery of faith which so greatly surpasses our understanding”, yet he insisted it must be firmly believed, and that through the Eucharist “the mind is filled with grace and a pledge of future glory is given to us.” In Catholic teaching, then, affirming the Eucharist’s reality is not optional or peripheral – it stands at the heart of the faith, demanding the full assent of both mind and will.
Is Faith in the Eucharist “Absurd”? Responding to Skeptics
To those without faith, the Real Presence can indeed seem absurd. In fact, critics old and new have ridiculed this doctrine. Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Thomas Paine sneered at it as superstition. More recently, biologist Richard Dawkins (a prominent atheist) has urged people to “Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!” for believing that “when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ… and [that] wine turns into blood” Richard Dawkins, Reason Rally, Washington D.C., March 24, 2012. Such critics often dismiss the Eucharist as primitive magic or even label it “cannibalism.” From a purely materialistic perspective, one might agree it sounds fantastic that God would hide under the appearance of a small wheat wafer and a sip of wine. The idea can strike the modern mind as incompatible with scientific knowledge (after all, chemical analysis of the host shows only bread). Are Catholics then irrational or anti-intellectual for insisting on this belief?
The Catholic answer is a resounding “no” – faith in the Eucharist is not irrational, even if it is suprarational (beyond ordinary reason). Several points can be made to defend this as intellectually credible:
1. The Miracle is Consistent with God’s Omnipotence: If one accepts the premise that an all-powerful God exists (a conclusion arrived at by philosophy and supported by many rational arguments), then no miracle is beyond possibility. The Creator who spoke the universe from nothing, who turned water into wine at Cana, who multiplied loaves, and who raised the dead, certainly can change bread into His Body. As St. Ambrose aptly said: “If the word of Elijah had power to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements?”. St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries, Book IX, Ch.52 The Catholic intellect, therefore, does not accept transubstantiation despite evidence, but on the basis of trusting God’s word and power above limited human empiricism. It’s an acknowledgment that reality is more than what meets the eye.
2. No Contradiction in Terms: The charge of “absurdity” often implies a logical contradiction, but transubstantiation has been carefully defined to avoid contradiction. The Church does not claim that the Eucharist is physically Jesus in a crude, empirical way (it’s not as if microscopic analysis will find divine DNA in the host). Instead, the claim is metaphysical: the identity of the bread is entirely replaced by Christ’s identity. This is a unique change, unlike any natural change, but not illogical. The outward properties remain as a sign to us, while the underlying reality is altered by divine action. God, who is Being itself, can surely cause a new reality to exist under old appearances. Thus, there is no scientific test that could falsify this – and science, by its own terms, deals only with measurable accidents, not with the question of substance that belongs to metaphysics and theology. The doctrine asks us to expand our understanding of reality beyond the empirical, not to violate reason.
3. Faith Perfects Reason: Catholicism holds that faith and reason are complementary. Far from being “blind,” authentic faith is an assent in light of evidence – not physical evidence, but evidence of trustworthiness. Why do Catholics believe Jesus’ words “This is My Body”? Because the historical evidence shows Jesus is trustworthy: He fulfilled prophecies, performed miracles, and most of all, He rose from the dead. If the Resurrection is a historical reality (which even skeptics like Thomas had to concede when faced with the risen Christ), then whatever Jesus teaches carries divine authority. It would actually be irrational not to believe One proven to be God. In this sense, accepting the Eucharist is a profoundly rational act of trust in Jesus Christ and in the teaching of His Church, which has handed on these truths from the apostles. As Aquinas said, “the proper object of faith is the First Truth (God) and all other truths insofar as they relate to God”. We believe the Eucharist not from wishful thinking, but because we first believe in Christ, the Truth. Reason leads to faith, and then faith takes reason further into mysteries it could not reach on its own.
4. The “Absurd” Becomes Meaningful in Love: The Eucharist might seem a bizarre idea unless we consider it in the context of God’s love and desire for intimacy with us. If God truly loves mankind, would He not find a way to be as close to us as possible? The pattern of God’s dealing with humanity is to constantly bridge the gap between the divine and human: He walked with Adam and Eve, spoke through prophets, became incarnate in Jesus, and then continues to come sacramentally in the Eucharist. Love often involves doing things that appear foolish or extreme to outside observers. From the outside, giving oneself as food might seem absurd; from the inside (the viewpoint of faith), it is the most tender act of intimacy – God uniting Himself to the believer. “Because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with one’s friends,” Aquinas notes, Christ did not want to leave us orphaned, so He devised a way to abide in us and we in Him through the Eucharist. Aquinas, supra What looks like madness is, in truth, divine love’s genius.
5. Historical Continuity and Coherence: Finally, an intellectual approach notes that denying the Real Presence creates bigger problems. If the Eucharist were merely symbolic, why did the early Christians universally accept such a difficult doctrine? Why did multitudes of martyrs die for the Mass? Why do ancient liturgies and writings consistently treat the Eucharist as sacred and not just a symbol? The coherence of Christian theology also suffers if one dismisses the Eucharist. Many atheist critiques ironically treat the Eucharist with more logic than some believers: they realize that if Christians truly believe God is present on the altar, it demands a radical response. As one critic put it, “If I believed what you believe, I would crawl on my knees to church to receive God.” The Catholic intellectual tradition has pondered the Eucharist for centuries and found it to inspire profound philosophy, art, and culture – hardly the mark of an idea that is mere nonsense. Rather, it has proven inexhaustibly rich, “a mystery inexhaustible to reason” that challenges the greatest minds and yet is accessible to the simplest heart.
In summary, while the skeptic sees only absurdity, the Catholic sees a mystery: something not fully graspable, but not against reason. It requires humility – admitting that not all truths are obvious or laboratory-verifiable. In a way, God chose a “foolish” means (as St. Paul might say) to confound the wise. The Infinite cloaks Himself in the finite to test our trust. Faith in the Eucharist does not mean abandoning critical thought; it means extending our intellect to embrace truths revealed by a higher intelligence (God). The believer can thus reply to the atheist: “It’s not that I shut off my brain; it’s that I chose to trust the greatest mind of all – God – who has revealed this reality.”
A Seeming Scandal to Reason, a Glory to Faith
What seems “absurd” to pure natural reason becomes, by faith, the height of divine wisdom and intimacy. Yes, the Eucharist is a scandal to overly rationalistic minds, just as the Cross was “unto the Greeks foolishness” 1 Cor 1:23. But to the eyes of faith, the Eucharist is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” 1 Cor 1:24. It is nothing less than God bending low to nourish and unite Himself with His creatures. The finite indeed receives the Infinite; the Creator and King of the universe makes Himself present in the humblest way – under appearances of bread, so approachable, so gentle. This is not madness but the most exquisite divine condescension.
Catholics for two millennia have echoed the cry of the man in the Gospel, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” Mark 9:23. To accept that a piece of bread is truly God requires that supernatural help. Yet once that gift of faith is embraced, the reward is immense: an encounter with Christ so immediate and personal that it cannot be duplicated by any other means on earth. Faith perfects human reason here by allowing it to assent to what God says because God says it, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. In the Eucharist, faith and reason meet: reason says “God can do this; Christ has proven trustworthy”, and faith says “Therefore, I believe what He declares, even if my senses protest.” As St. Thomas Aquinas movingly wrote in his hymn Adoro Te Devote: “Sight, touch, taste fail with regard to Thee, but only the hearing is safely believed; I believe all that the Son of God has said, nothing is truer than the Word of Truth.”
Thus, the Catholic attitude is not to suppress questions but to lead them to the right answer in God’s Word. It is deeply intellectual to ponder how and why God acts as He does – many saints and theologians have written volumes on Eucharistic theology. But ultimately, the supreme intellect bows in adoration before the supreme Mystery. As the Council of Trent taught, in the Eucharist “are contained all the riches of the Church”, for it contains Christ Himself. What begins as a “scandal” to reason ends as a “glory” to faith: Emmanuel, God with us, under the signs of bread and wine, bridging heaven and earth.
In a world that prizes only what can be seen and measured, the Eucharist stands as a bold witness that Truth is sometimes hidden and that Faith is a higher form of knowing. To believe a consecrated host is God is not to commit intellectual suicide; it is to allow the Divine Light to elevate our intellect to truths it could never reach unaided. It is, in the end, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27) – the most intimate union of Creator and creature, under the guise of what the world calls foolish. In the Eucharist, faith truly “perfects human reason,” leading it to adore Truth Himself, present though unseen. And so the Church confidently professes this “mystery of faith,” inviting all people – skeptic and believer alike – to ponder it deeply and to approach the altar not with scoffing, but with humble awe.
“O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!” (St. Augustine). What human reason alone could hardly imagine, Divine Love has made a reality. The proper response is the one the Church has always given: Adoration. In that adoration, the intellect is not dimmed – it is enlightened by the very presence of the God who is Truth.
“Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief” (Mark 9:24) – and increase in us the faith that, far from being absurd, is the beginning of all wisdom.
Sources:
Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version (Matthew 26:26-28; John 6:51-69; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
Didache, chapters 9 and 14 (c. 1st century)
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 6-7 (c. 107 A.D.)
St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Book V, Ch. 2 (c. 180 A.D.)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Third Part, Q.75 (13th century)
Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on the Eucharist (1551)
Pope St. Pius X, exhortations on the Eucharist (early 20th century)
G.K. Chesterton, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic (quoted in Carl E. Olson, 2024)
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
Richard Dawkins, remarks in The God Delusion and public speeches (2006)