This is part of a series on Roman Catholicism and the eucharist. See this index.

Since I wrote my (now 48-part) series on the Eucharist, I’ve since interacted with dozens of Roman Catholics and read many Catholic apologists defending the Eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church. While there are a wide range of topics discussed, there are three that are most common. They are so common that I have predicted them with the most basic of prediction:

A unreasonably large proportion of the defense of the Eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church from the earliest church writers can be categorized, summarized, and refuted with these three sentences. That’s how shallow and repetitive Catholic apologetics are.

Now, let’s go over what these are.

Justin Martyr

Here is one example that I found from one Catholic apologist:

Notice how the apologist’s meme adds a Greek word and a gloss (“[The EUCHARIST]”) as well as capitalizing a bunch of words as if to say that this is an open and shut case. The irony is that this quotation leaves out a very important word. Let’s look at the version found in Roman Catholic J.P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca (published from 1857–1866) in vol VI, cols 428-429:

Now compare this to the quote above:

(Note: It is common for different English translations to switch up the order of the first two sub-phrases)

Do you see it? The apologist’s translation does not include the word εὐχαριστηθείσαν (‘eucharisted’) either in Greek or in English. That’s because calling the food eucharisted—in the past tense—changes how the text must be understood.

The “Prayer of His Word” is understood by most scholars to refer to the consecratory words “This is my body…this is my blood.” By using the present tense “food which is blessed by the Prayer of His Word” it reads as if by these words of Jesus they are making the eucharist the eucharist. But if the food is already eucharisted prior, then those later words are only consecrating the previously existing eucharist, not turning it into the eucharist: it isn’t the words themselves by which the food becomes the eucharist.

In all my years, I have never once seen a Catholic apologist use an English translation which literally translates the underlying Greek. Never. I have also never interacted with a single Catholic who has ever admitted that the translation they are using has this problem. However, I have interacted with Catholics who continue to use this “proof” long after I pointed out their error.

For more information, see “Part 3: Justin Martyr.”

Ignatius

Here is another example:

This quotation comes in various forms. Sometimes it includes earlier portions of the document separated by an ellipsis, but it invariably excludes the previous sentence of context:

It is here that Ignatius identifies the early church’s “eucharist” (literally: thanksgiving) as the giving of tithes and offerings in the thanks-offering of the church. The Gnostics showed no regard for the needy by refusing to offer their tithes out of which then came the bread and wine used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Ignatius says “they have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty” immediately preceding “They abstain from the Eucharist.” These two are intrinsically linked: they are two ways of saying the same thing.

The Roman Catholic has to come up with a contrived explanation for why Ignatius is talking about helping the poor in the context of the Eucharist. The Protestant need only say “these are the same thing”: the eucharist is, fundamentally, about helping the poor and those in need.

In all my years, I have never once seen a Catholic apologist quote this by including the previous sentence. Never. I have also never interacted with a single Catholic who has ever admitted that this is a problem. However, I have interacted with Catholics who continue to use this “proof” long after I pointed out their error.

For more information, see “Part 4, Ignatius of Antioch.”

Irenaeus

The history of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is an interesting one. Irenaeus wrote in Greek, but for much of history, we only had access to copies written in Latin. These Latin translations are of dubious quality too. For example, translators would often try to translate from the Latin back into the Greek in order to figure out (from the Greek) what Against Heresies actually said. Here is how Phillip Schaff described it (emphasis added):

We only had access to the Latin version until the Greek manuscript was discovered in 1743.

As you might expect, there are significant deviations between the two texts. Normally scholars favor the text written in the original language, especially when the secondary translation is known to be of dubious quality.

Despite that standard practice, Catholic apologists heavily rely on English translations from the Latin text. Nearly every time a Catholic cites Irenaeus to support the Eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church, they do so using an English translation that favors the Latin source.

The reason is straightforward: the original Greek does not contain the Eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church.

Here is one example:

Here is another example:

Can you figure out which is which? Take the full quiz here.

I have never once seen a Catholic apologist use an English translation which literally translates the underlying Greek. Never. It is always based on the Latin. I have also never interacted with a single Catholic who has ever admitted that the translation they are using has this problem. However, I have interacted with Catholics who continue to use this “proof” long after I pointed out their error.

For more information, see “Part 6: Irenaeus of Lyons” and “Part 36: Irenaeus, Revisted.”