Since I was a young child preparing for my first communion, I knew there was something special about the Eucharist. In my many years away from the Church, this is the one Catholic doctrine that I carried with me that I had absolutely no doubt about. I BELIEVE that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist. The amazing thing that I found was the number of Protestants who also hold this belief, especially high-Anglicans. I assumed this was a belief that was accepted across the deonominational divide. That is, until I started service as a lay Eucharistic minister in the Episcopal church. What I saw was a distinct contrast to what I saw when I was a child. I expected deep reverence for the sacred Body and Blood. What I saw was treatment more on the level of it being mere bread and wine. This caused me to look into what the Espicopal church taught about the Eucharist. I came to find out that the range of beliefs went from a mere memorial supper to it being completely the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

I was amazed at the range of beliefs on the matter. Shocked even. To me, the accounts of the Last Supper seemed as clear as a bell. "This IS my body." From a biblical perspective John 6 is really the focal point of contention about the Eucharist. The language is quite graphic and shocking to those present. This would certainly be the case if Christ did mean as Catholics say He did. People left. Christ had a moral responsiblity to clear the matter up and HE DID NOT. I find it difficult to conclude anything other than He meant real flesh. The primary rebuttal of this by non-believers in the Real Presence is John 6:63 which says "the flesh has nothing to offer". To me this fails to deliver the desired blow to the doctrine because even if it was referring to the same flesh of Christ that was mentioned in the previous several verses it never DENIES that it IS His flesh. It just says that it profits nothing. It would still BE flesh. Beyond that bickering tended to focus on the further clarification of Real Presence to specifically mean transubstantiation.

To me, the dividing line between what was correct and what was not correct had to do with the level with which I felt God was capable of bestowing the gift of His Body and Blood to us. The question simply became: Is God capable of doing it as Catholics say that it is done and if so would He give us any less than Himself totally? Transubstantiation defines the Eucharist as being substantially the "Body, Blood, Soul and Divnity" of our Lord. Somehow, someway what we receive that appears to us as bread and wine IS Christ and it certainly is an act of faith to accept that.

This doctrine was a primary point of contention between where I was and where He wanted me to be. Before that though, there were a great many other hints that led me to at least give the Catholic Church a fair shake. The remainder of these posts will be my story, somewhat sequentially, as to how, by Gods grace, He led me back into His Holy Catholic Church.