Summary of Behold, It Is I: Scripture, Tradition, and Science on the Real Presence by Fr. George Elliott and Stacy Trasancos

Here are my summary points. I hope that reading these inspires you to purchase this great book!

Part 1: What Does the Bible Say?

1: Old Testament

Key Ideas:

• Since the Eucharist is of such monumental importance, God prepared His people through prefigurements and images, such as: the fruit of the tree of life (Gen 2:9, 3:22), the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:17-20), the Passover (Ex 12:1-18), the manna in the wilderness (Ex 16:14-15), and the bread of Presence (1 Sam 21:4-6).

Effective Questions to Ask When Discussing the Real Presence:

• It was necessary to eat the fruit of the tree of life, the Passover lamb, and the manna to be saved. If we do not eat Jesus, who is the new tree of life, the new Lamb of God, and the new bread from heaven in the Eucharist, then how does He save us? (37-38)

2: The Institution Narratives

Key Ideas:

• The institution of the Eucharist is one of the few moments in Christ’s life that was recorded four times with almost the exact correspondence of the words and actions in all four accounts (Mt 26:26–29, Mk 14:22–25, Lk 22:14–20, 1 Cor 11:23–26). Therefore, the actions and words must have been particularly important to the authors of the New Testament and the early Church.
• Hebrews 9:15–20 explains the logic of the blood of the covenant. Since the Old Testament prefigurements used real blood, and the reality is more real than the prefigurement, Jesus’s blood of the covenant at the Last Supper must at least be real blood.
• “To do” is used throughout the Old Testament to mean “to offer sacrifice.”
• “Remembrance” is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to a sacrifice.

Effective Questions to Ask When Discussing the Real Presence:

• If the Last Supper and, particularly, the words pronounced over the bread and wine are not constitutive of the saving act of Jesus but rather just a commemorative meal, why is it recorded four times in the New Testament?
• Some argue that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Last Supper, but is there any textual evidence of this? Or rather, does the textual evidence demonstrate that He was speaking quite literally?
• Some argue that Jesus’s “Blood of the Covenant” is not real blood. How can this be if the blood of the sacrifices of the old covenant used real blood and they are only shadows of the fulfillment wrought by Jesus Christ?
• What did Jesus mean when He said, “Do this in remembrance of me”? (54-6)

3: The Gospel of John

Key Ideas:

• John 6 is the longest and most developed passage in the New Testament concerning the Eucharist. John 6 is meant to be read as one unit made up of the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on the water, and the bread of life discourse. The miracles prepare the reader’s faith for the strong statement that Jesus makes in the discourse.
• The bread of life discourse is principally about the Eucharist, but it is not exclusively about the Eucharist. It also talks about Jesus’s relationship with the Father and the gift of faith.
• Any interpretation other than the one that holds that Jesus was speaking literally requires making claims that cannot be substantiated elsewhere in the Scriptures or that contradict something else Jesus explicitly taught.

Effective Questions to Ask When Discussing the Real Presence:

• If Jesus was just talking about how faith in Him is necessary for salvation, why did so many of His disciples walk away? Why was that such a hard saying?
• If you were Jesus and wanted to teach that your flesh was true food and your blood was true drink, how would you say it more forcefully and convincingly than Jesus does in John 6:53–55?
• If Jesus didn’t mean that His flesh was really intended to be eaten and His blood wasn’t really intended to be drunk, why did He not back down at any of the three times that He was questioned? (76-7)

4: After the Crucifixion

Key Ideas:

• The Church’s teaching on the Eucharist does not rely exclusively on the Gospels; rather, her teachings are based on the entire New Testament. Luke, in the passage on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-25), records Jesus celebrating the Eucharist after the Resurrection, and Acts says that the first Christians dedicated themselves to the celebration of the Eucharist (Acts 2:42, 20:7-11, 27:35). In the First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul continues to develop a theology of the Eucharist, and he considers the Eucharist important enough to merit correcting certain abuses in the Church in Corinth (10 & 11).

Effective Questions to Ask When Discussing the Real Presence:

• In Emmaus, why does Jesus vanish from their sight right after breaking the bread?
• Some argue that the “breaking of bread” signifies just a regular meal. If that were the case, why would St. Paul state that the early Christians “dedicated themselves” to it?
• If Jesus isn’t really present in the Eucharist, why does Paul say that whoever eats it unworthily is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord? If the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper do not truly become the body and blood of Jesus, why do those who do not recognize His body and blood in the Eucharist eat and drink judgment against themselves? Are they being condemned for discerning the truth? (90-92)

Part 2: What Do the Father’s Say?

The Fathers of the Church – the saints and leaders of the first several hundred years of Christianity – are reliable for a correct interpretation of the Eucharistic texts of the Bible a few different reasons:

1. They were the disciples of the apostles (or the disciples of the apostles’ disciples). In ancient times, the discipleship system was one in which the disciple’s duty was to internalize the teachings and way of life of the master completely. Eventually, the disciple became a master, and then his duty was to hand on accurately the teachings and way of life of his master. Therefore, even if the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the Church, it’s reasonable that they would have accurately preserved Jesus’s teachings for at least several generations of disciples.
2. They gave us the New Testament. The New Testament was written in apostolic times, which means that it was written during the era of the apostles’ lifetimes. However, it wasn’t compiled as a clearly defined set of inspired texts until the third or fourth century. There are many writings from apostolic times, but not all of them were included in the Bible. Who chose which books belong in the Bible? The early Christians. The Holy Spirit guided them to select and preserve the books that He had inspired as Holy Scripture. By trusting the early Christians to tell us which books are inspired, it’s reasonable to trust them to tell us what those books are telling us.
3. They were holy people. Today, we put more credence in the teachings of Christians who live holy lives. These Fathers of the Church were the great saints of their time. They lived heroic holiness and often gave their lives as martyrs of Jesus Christ. On a human level, they are reliable because their teachings are coherent with their way of life. As Christians, we also know that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, so when we see many people who are living heroic holiness and who are teaching the same thing, it is a good sign that they teach the truth.

With the Fathers of the Church as our guide in interpreting the Scriptures, we are going to see 3 things:

1. all of the teachings of the Church Fathers are compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist;
2. some of the teachings of the Church Fathers can only be interpreted to coincide with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist;
3. despite the Fathers of the Church continually calling out heresy and ferociously fighting to eradicate it, not one Father of the Church ever disputes or attacks someone who teaches the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

4 Church Fathers on the Eucharist:

1. St. Ignatius of Antioch (click here)
2. St. Justin Martyr (click here)
3. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (click here)
4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (click here)

Part 3: What Does Science Say?

Miracles VS. Science

• Miracles are individual and unique events that, of their nature, do not follow the laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. So how, then, is anyone supposed to talk about Eucharistic miracles in light of science? The answer is to step back from our knowledge of the physical realm of nature and take in a greater landscape of reality, one that includes the supernatural. Nature seen in its proper context is the creation of God, His handiwork, held in existence in every moment by God. A more advanced faith perspective makes it possible to see that God, who holds creation in His hand, can also be compelled by love to act beyond His usual order and show us He is truly present among us. Miracles are simply the logical conclusion of faith in a rational Creator. 134

What’s a Miracle?

• In classical Latin, mīrāculum refers to an object of wonder. The word is derived from admiration when an event happens but its cause is hidden. Miracles cause us to be full of wonder because the cause is God who is hidden from us all. St. Aquinas defined a miracle as “those things which God does outside those causes which we know.” Notice again that he kept the phrase “which we know” (or at least it was kept in translation). When we cover the Eucharistic miracles across time, take special note that increasingly, as our scientific understanding of the world has grown, the simple message of these miracles is that Christ is truly here and present with us, not just in mystical spiritual form, but really present, physically, in the Holy Eucharist. 139

What is a Eucharistic Miracle?

• Eucharistic miracles occur when, in addition to transubstantiation, there is also a physical, chemical, and/or biological substantial change where God does something against that order of nature which we know and are accustomed to observing. In many cases, the consecrated Host is said to become human flesh, or the wine becomes human blood, but there are other instances where other physical changes occur that defy explanation, such as when consecrated Hosts are said to have survived rainfall, left indentations on stone, or caused animals to behave differently. 146

Do we have to believe in Church-approved Eucharistic miracles?

• Eucharistic miracles are considered private revelations, and Christians are not obligated to believe they occurred. This is not because we doubt that God could work such miracles, but it is because we can never be certain of the scientific investigation. Because we are free to doubt scientific findings, we are also free to decide whether we think the miracle happened or not. We are not required to accept even Church-approved miracles. We are free to examine the evidence and make our own conclusions. To reiterate, we cannot deny that miracles occur. Their possibility is a truth of faith, for Christ Himself worked many miracles. Miracles are found throughout the Old and New Testaments. The Church urges prudence in the determination of modern supernatural phenomena. 147.

3 Eucharistic Miracles to Examine:

1. The Feast of Corpus Christi (click here)
2. The Buenos Aires Miracles (click here)
3. The Lanciano Report (click here)

Conclusion: Don’t Put Your Faith on Trial

• If you find yourself afraid to accept that what you have heard about the Eucharistic miracles may not be true, if you find that your faith depends on these miracles, please pause and dig deep. Why do you need the miracles to be true? Do you doubt? If so, pray for clarity and courage to address your uncertainty or disbelief, for you are not alone. Even St. Thomas had doubts until Christ appeared with His wounds so Thomas could touch them. Ask God for the gift of theological faith, and it will be granted to you. Christ will come to you too… So, dear reader, do not put your faith on trial with the science of the Eucharistic miracles, because scientific knowledge is always, always incomplete. At some point, too much faith in the science and testimony of Eucharistic miracles becomes impious. It is to succumb to the scientism and materialism of our day, and even Christians must guard against an over-reliance on the senses. It is useful to recall the warning given in the Catechism of the Council of Trent in 1563. “Pastors, aware of the warning of the Apostle that those who discern not the body of the Lord are guilty of a most grave crime, should first of all impress on the minds of the faithful the necessity of detaching, as much as possible, their mind and understanding from the dominion of the senses; for if they believe that this Sacrament contains only what the senses disclose, they will of necessity fall into enormous impiety.” Having exhausted scientific analysis of any Eucharistic miracle, pushing the best analytical methods of our time to the limits, knowledge will never provide the certainty we seek. We will ultimately rely on faith.