First of all, the Eucharist was intended as a different kind of miracle from the outset, requiring more faith, as opposed to the "proof" of tangible, empirical miracles.

Secondly, the Virgin Birth, through which the incarnate Jesus came into the world, cannot be observed or proven, and is the utter opposite of a demonstrable miracle -- yet miracle it is, of the most extraordinary sort. Likewise, this is true of the Atonement. The world sees a wretch of a beaten and tortured man being put to death on a cross. The Christian sees there the great miracle of Redemption and the means of the salvation of mankind: an unspeakably sublime miracle, but who but those with the eyes of faith can see or believe it? Baptism, according to most Christians, imparts real grace of some sort to those who receive it. But this is rarely evident or tangible, especially in infants. And on and on . . .

Thirdly, it's obviously true that Jesus performed miracles in order to verify His Divine Nature, but did He not call us on to a more sublime faith? For example, in Matthew 12:38-39, Jesus has one of His frequent run-ins with the Pharisees, who requested of Him (NRSV, as are all verses here):

"Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

(cf. Mt 16:1-4, Lk 11:29-30, Jn 2:18-22)

Note that He does appeal to the sign of His Resurrection, after the pattern of Jonah, but look how He regards the seeking of signs (see also Mk 8:11-12). In fact, in the eucharistic passage of John 6 our Lord Jesus seems to emphasize the same point by the thrust of His dialogue. He mentions "signs" in 6:26 in reference to the feeding of the five thousand the previous day, but then when they ask Him for a "sign" (6:30), He spurs them on to the more profound faith required with regard to the eucharistic miracle.

Fourthly, we have the example of Doubting Thomas (Jn 20:24-29). Jesus appeared, post-Resurrection, apparently for the express purpose of demonstrating to Thomas graphically that He was raised from the dead. But then what does He say?:

Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.

Fifthly, signs, wonders, and miracles do not suffice for many hard-hearted people anyway:

. . . If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

(Luke 16:31)

For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles . . . For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength.

(1 Corinthians 1:22-23,25)

Likewise, when He was explaining the Eucharist, He said:

Does this offend you? . . . among you there are some who do not believe . . .

(John 6:61,64)

This is why Jesus merely reiterated His teaching in John 6 in ever-more forceful terms, rather than explain it in a different way, or reveal the meaning of the so-called symbolic language, as Protestants would have it. He repeated it because He knew that the problem was flat-out unbelief, not lack of comprehension. The Eucharist is no less "foolish" than Christ crucified. People will disbelieve both because they are difficult to grasp with the natural mind, whereas the mind of faith can see and believe them. Romano Guardini, a great Catholic writer, stated about John 6:

Should they have understood? Hardly. It is inconceivable that at any time anyone could have grasped intellectually the meaning of these words. But they should have believed. They should have clung to Christ blindly, wherever he led them . . . and simply said: we do not understand; show us what you mean. Instead they judge, and everything closes to them.

(The Lord, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954, 206)

Jesus turns to the remaining hard core: "Do you also wish to go away?" . . . Still not a word of help, only the hard, pure demand for a decision . . . They do not uinderstand either, but struck by the power of the mystery, they surrender themselves to it. they are dumbfounded but trustful; at least most of them . . .

Apparently there is no genuine belief without battle. Every believer worthy of the name must sometime undergo the danger of scandal and its trial by fire . . . It was the shock that probably shattered Judas' faith, the other eleven saving themselves only by a blind leap of trust to the Master's feet . . . Here is the steepest, highest pinnacle of our faith . . . faith's supreme test.

(Meditations Before Mass, Westminster, MD: 1955, 164-166)

This sort of question exhibits a theological outlook scandalously akin to the Nestorian heresy, which is a tendency -- sadly -- in much (popular) Protestant Christological thought: i.e., the view that there are two persons in the incarnate Christ. Protestants too often attempt to separate divine attributes from the incarnate Christ as a person, or act as if God merely dwelt in Christ. In so doing, they depart from traditional orthodox, Catholic Christology (and also much of traditional Protestant orthodoxy).

The Catholic Church, of course, rejects the notion that Christ had one nature, since this is the heresy of Monophysitism, which went down in flames at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which proclaimed the Two Natures of Christ (Hypostatic Union). Jesus certainly could demonstrate omnipotence, because He was omnipotent in His Divine Nature during His incarnation, even while limited in his Human Nature. Catholic theologian Matthias Premm writes:

Nothing "flows" from Christ's divine nature into his human nature or vice versa. Both natures remain untouched, unchanged, and completely separate. The Omniscience proper to divine nature, for example, is not a property of Jesus' human intellect.

. . . The unity in Christ did not result from the uniting of his two natures with each other, but in the union of each of them in the Person of the Son of God . . . (. . . the hypostatic union) . . .

Both divine and human attributes can be predicated of him, although the two natures are separated by an infinite abyss. For example, I can say that Christ is omniscient (as God), but also that he does not know everything (as man); God is lying in the crib (that is, as a man); God is dying on the cross, etc.

(Dogmatic Theology for the Laity, Rockford, IL: TAN, 1967, 151-152; emphasis added)

Likewise, theologian Ludwig Ott summarizes orthodox, biblical Christology:

The human and the divine activities predicated of Christ in Holy Writ and in the Fathers may not be divided between two persons or hypostases, the Man-Christ and the God-Logos, but must be attributed to the one Christ, the Logos become Flesh. It is the Divine Logos, who suffered in the flesh, was crucified, died, and rose again.

{Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 (orig. 1952), P.144}

This is contrary to both Nestorianism, and implications that Jesus couldn't have been omnipotent or omnipresent (in His Divine Nature), because He was incarnate. Thus, we find in Scripture, all Divine attributes being applied to Christ, the God-Man:

1) Omnipotence: Jesus' Own Words: Mt 11:27 (cf. Jn 16:15, 17:10), 28:18, Jn 2:19, 5:19-21, 6:40, 10:17-18, Rev 1:18, 3:7 / NT: Jn 3:35, 13:3, Phil 3:20-21, Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, 1 Pet 3:22.

2) Omniscience: Jesus' Own Words: Mt 9:4, 22:18, 26:46 (cf. Mk 14:42), Mk 2:8 (cf. Lk 5:22), 5:30, Lk 22:10-13, Jn 5:42, 6:64, 13:10-11 / NT: Mt 12:25, 13:54, Lk 6:8, 9:47, Jn 2:24-25, 4:29, 7:15, 13:1, 16:30, 18:4, 21:17, Col 2:3, Rev 2:23.

3) Omnipresence: Jesus' Own Words: Mt 18:20, 28:20 / NT: Eph 1:23, Col 3:11.

This objection is also quite weak and insubstantial in light of the fact that Jesus could walk through walls after His Resurrection (Jn 20:26), and even a mere man, Philip, could be "caught away" and transported to another place by God (Acts 8:39-40). So some Protestants think that God "couldn't" or "wouldn't" have performed the miracle of the Eucharist? One shouldn't attempt to "tie" God's hands by such arguments of alleged implausibility.

The fact remains that God clearly can perform any miracle He so chooses, and this particular one entails no suspension of the principles of the Incarnation, once the doctrine of Two Natures is correctly understood. Jesus can be both incarnate and present in may places in the Eucharist, just as He can be incarnate and be present spiritually everywhere (something which all Protestants believe). Neither scenario is contradictory or impossible for God. They are both miraculous and supernatural.

Many Christian doctrines require a great deal of faith, even relatively "blind" faith. Protestants manage to believe in many such doctrines. Why should the Eucharist be singled out for excessive skepticism and unchecked rationalism?

If indeed it is idolatry (which I, of course, deny), then the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, was equally guilty of it. As late as 1543 (three years before his death), Luther didn't forbid anyone who believed in transubstantiation from joining his movement (Letter to the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543). On the other hand, he regarded Zwingli, who adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist, as "damned" and "out of the Church" on those grounds, as is well-known. So Luther's view are far closer to Catholicism, than to the average evangelical today, whom he would regard as "damned!" Church history is filled with many such ironies . . . When asked whether Lutherans should do away with the elevation of the host in the liturgy, Luther consistently replied in 1544:

By no means, for such abrogation would tend to diminish respect for the Sacrament and cause it to be undervalued . . . If Christ is truly present in the Bread, why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be adored?

Joachim, one of Luther's friends, added:

We saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and reverently worshiped Christ.

(Table Talk, ed. Mathesius [Leipzig ed., 1903], 341. From Hartmann Grisar, Luther, 6 vols., London: 1917, vol. 4, 239-240)

For these beliefs, Luther was accused by fellow Reformer John Calvin of being "half-papist" and of committing idolatry:

He has sinned . . . from ignorance and the grossest extravagance. For what absurdities he pawned upon us . . . when he said the bread is the very body! . . . a very foul error!

(Letter to Martin Bucer, Jan. 12, 1538. From John Dillenberger, John Calvin: Selections From His Writings, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1971, 47)

Beyond that, I think the charge of idolatry is absolutely wrongheaded to begin with. To be an idolater is fundamentally to put something in place of God. An animist who is truly worshiping a statue of wood or stone or amulet as God in and of itself (i.e., over against the true, one Creator God) is a true idolater. The Catholic (or Lutheran, or Anglican, or Orthodox, broadly speaking) is doing no such thing, for they believe that the one true Creator God is really, truly, substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine.

Thus, they are consciously worshiping the eternal God, as far as they are concerned, not a piece of bread (this is especially true for Catholics, who maintain that the bread and wine are no longer even there, but only the appearance or "accidents"). Nor is the Lutheran worshiping the bread and wine which he still believes is present after consecration, but God, who is now present "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine (consubstantiation). Now, one may wish to quibble with the belief in the Real Presence and/or transubstantiation (a development of same), but it is a very incoherent argument to claim that one is committing idolatry when in fact they are consciously worshiping God Himself in the consecrated host (as we believe, and as the Lutheran Joachim above acknowledges). That is the very opposite of idolatry.

How is it that God could take on flesh and become a Man, but couldn't possibly become truly present in a miracle which transforms the essence of bread and wine? The Jews and Unitarians regard the Incarnation as every bit as unthinkable as many evangelicals regard the Real Presence. But neither scenario is any more philosophically implausible or impossible than the other. So -- in my opinion -- there is no a priori objection to such a possibility which has any credibility or plausibility. But belief in the Real Presence will still assuredly require much faith, as it did for the hearers of our Lord's discourse in John 6, the only instance we have in the Bible of believers forsaking Jesus for doctrinal reasons.

Charles Hodge writes,

. . . Romanists teach that spiritual life is as necessary to the experience of the benefits of the sacrament, as natural life is to the body's being nourished by food [Catechismus Romanus, II. iv. 40]. They further teach that baptism, which precedes the eucharist, conveys all the saving benefits of Christ's redemption; they therefore cannot make the eucharist essential, and consequently they cannot, without contradicting Christ or themselves, interpret John 6:48-65 as referring to the Lord's Supper.

(Systematic Theology, III, 682 ff.)

Hodge is correct about our sacramental beliefs, but wrong as to the alleged contradiction vis-a-vis John 6 and "Romanist" theology. Jesus said, ... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53). Hodge and other Protestants argue that if this is interpreted as a reference to the Lord's Supper, then the Lord's Supper is necessary for eternal life, but that this idea is inconsistent with the other Catholic beliefs. Also, Jesus said, Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up at the last day (John 6:54). It is argued that if this is taken as a reference to the Lord's Supper, then absurd conclusions immediately follow: anyone who partakes of the Lord's Supper has eternal life and Jesus will raise that person up at the last day.

But Hodge and those who use the same argument are interpreting Jesus' words in an improperly universal sense which allows of absolutely no exceptions, in any way, shape, or form. Biblical language rarely works in such a woodenly literalistic way. Jesus (especially) and other biblical writers often speak proverbially or hyperbolically. This was a Hebrew use of language which was utilized in order to express emphasis. Thus (NRSV):

. . . if you say 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.

(Matthew 5:22)

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away . . .

(Matthew 5:30)

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

(Luke 14:26)

. . . even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.

(Matthew 21:21-22)

Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.

(1 John 3:9)

Even John 3:16 and 3:36 or Romans 10:9, if taken hyper-literally, would exclude Old Testament saints and all those who have never heard of Jesus or the gospel, through no fault of their own, from salvation. Thus, Hodge's "difficulty" vanishes. On the other hand, Protestants are left with these forceful verses, and would be well advised to take them very seriously, as the biblical text warrants (and as some indeed do).

It behooves every Christian to consider the extensive exegetical and cross-referential evidence of John 6, the Last Supper and the two Pauline Eucharistic passages (1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:27-30), which lead to the solid conclusion that the Real Presence is indeed described therein. That is why the belief was virtually universally-held until Zwingli proposed the novel innovation of pure symbolism, and Calvin offered his "dynamic" interpretation, a millennium and a half after Christ. And this is why Martin Luther, after trying to avoid the above conclusion ("I could thus have given a great smack in the face to Popery"), confessed:

I am caught; I cannot escape, the text is too forcible . . . I wrestled and struggled and would gladly have escaped.

(Letter to the Christians of Stassburg, Dec. 14, 1524; from Hartmann Grisar, Luther, London: 1917, vol. 4, 492)

The Eucharist does indeed cleanse us from sin (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1391-1395, especially #1393 -- available online on my Catholic Documents page). However, it is more a "preventive measure," so to speak. We receive grace for the avoidance of future sin. If one takes communion in mortal sin, it does not wipe out that serious sin, and in fact it is a further grave sin to partake in that state. A Catholic must confess a mortal sin to a priest and receive absolution before approaching the Lord's Table. It contributes to our salvation insofar as it helps (by the supernatural grace imparted) to remove the sin which bars us from salvation and heaven and a right relationship with God.

This is asking for the impossible. By the very nature (and literal definition) of transubstantiation,  what changes is the substance or essence, not the qualities, appearances, or accidents of what still appear to our senses to be bread and wine. The change is a supernatural substantial one, and is a miracle, albeit of a very unique, "strange" sort. So there is no way to verify such a supernatural change scientifically, nor would we wish it to be so, in my humble opinion, much as I value science as a means of knowledge (in its own domain).

Such an endeavor would be similar to looking at a chunk of Jesus' skin or examining His blood to see how it belongs to both God and Man simultaneously. Both notions require faith and are scientifically unverifiable, just as Jesus strongly implied to Doubting Thomas after he had to feel Jesus' wounds in order to believe (John 20:28).

Thankfully, in this case, I think there is more than enough divine revelation in Scripture to enable even a careful and skeptical exegete, predisposed against it, to accept this miracle -- excruciatingly difficult as it is to comprehend. But then again, aren't many Christian concepts and events difficult to grasp?: the Virgin Birth, eternity, omnipresence, the Trinity, the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, the raising of Lazarus, perfect love, free will vs. grace, efficacious baptism, the problem of evil, etc. I venture to say that this miracle is less difficult to give assent to than many of the above, which strain the natural mind and require a more or less "blind" leap of faith.

Nevertheless, Catholics can point to such things as the "Eucharistic Miracle" of Lanciano, Italy, in which a consecrated Host became actual human flesh and blood, as verified by scientific analysis. Although this is not the usual occurrence (a miracle within a miracle, one could say), God performed the miracle as a response to the doubt over the Real Presence of a monk in the 8th century.

There are many many "Catholic miracles" like this, such as the incorruptibles  -- saints whose bodies do not decay, sometimes for centuries after their deaths. This is thoroughly documented, and there is a book out about it, complete with documented photographs. Fr. Solanus Casey, from my area [Detroit], is one of these. His body was examined a few years back (he died in the late 1950s) and it was not corrupt. Many of these bodies also have a fragrant odor! Then there is the stigmata - wounds of Christ, which Padre Pio in our own time had, and Marian miracles, such as those at Lourdes and especially Fatima. These are all very fascinating, and verification of the Catholic faith in particular. Protestants are hard-pressed to explain all these peculiarly Catholic miracles away, which is why they usually don't even try, opting for flat-out skepticism or simply ignoring them altogether.

The institution and very beginning of a sacrament is different from the later understanding and practice of it because doctrines and practices develop. The disciples hardly even knew what was going on at the Last Supper. If you're with Jesus and He tells you to drink a cup which is His blood, and eat bread which is somehow His body, you do it, even if you can't figure out what He is talking about. The same confusion existed in the discourse of John 6 when Jesus was talking about the Eucharist. No doubt Peter had little notion of what was going on when Jesus commissioned him as the Rock upon which He would build His Church (Matthew 16:18-19).

The rule that someone should be free from sin to partake of the Eucharist is a straightforward principle which is derived from the Real Presence: one should be holy when they are approaching God. With regard to this being a Church rule, it would not have been binding until at least the time that St. Paul mentioned such a requirement (1 Corinthians 11:23-30). This was some 30-40 years after the Last Supper. Jesus didn't explain all that. He simply gave them bread and wine as part of the Passover meal, and they probably thought He was using parabolic language, as He often did.

Therefore, it is a non-issue that Jesus gave the bread and wine to Judas. One must know what is going on to even be in a state of mortal sin (sufficient reflection and full consent of the will are required elements). Judas did not possess those two elements (i.e., pertaining to the Eucharist). If He fully knew what was going on after the time of Paul's teaching, and partook, then he would be committing mortal sin (in addition to his betrayal, of course). Note that Paul was condemning approaching the Eucharist unworthily (knowing what it is, or in a position where one should know). That was the mortal sin; not merely partaking while not knowing, and being in mortal sin.

Much more difficult to explain is how Judas could be described as elect (Gk, eklegomai - Strong's word # 1586 -- Lk 6:13, Jn 6:70; cf. Mk 13:20, Jn 13:18, 15:16,19, Acts 1:2), and then fall away and be damned. That is a far greater difficulty (especially for Calvinists) than this "problem" (which really is no problem, closely-examined) is for Catholics. If Jesus gave Judas the Eucharist, knowing that He would betray Him, then He was equally irresponsible by choosing Him as one of the "elect" in the first place. This is the mystery of Providence and Predestination. The Son of Man was to be betrayed by His own disciple, and this was foretold by the Prophets. But in the end, each person is responsible for their own eternal destiny.

We cannot interpret things in a wooden, hyper-literalistic fashion, not taking into account context, the level of development (everything develops), and relative culpability of the person possibly in mortal sin (not even -- in all likelihood -- understanding what a mortal sin is in the first place, nor its explicit biblical basis: 1 John 5:16-17).

Real Presence means the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Transubstantiation is a developed view of Real Presence, by which the nature of the transformation of the elements of bread and wine is explained, according to more philosophical categories. There were many traces of such a view early on. The Greek Fathers before the sixth century, for example, used the term metaousiosis, which meant "change of being," quite similar to "change of substance."

Thus, Orthodox, High Church Anglicans and Lutherans agree with Catholics about the Real Presence but differ on the explanation as to how it comes about, or even on whether such elaborate explanations are pious and necessary. This is somewhat similar, I think, to the "gospel" itself vs. intricate theories of justification by which salvation is achieved. The former concept is the essence, just as Real Presence is the essence of transubstantiation. And that's why our theory of Eucharistic change is not a "late-arriving" doctrine or dogma, but rather, a consistent, legitimate development.

Yet Protestants want to make the technical theory the equivalent of the "good news" itself, which is neither scriptural nor logically necessary. I find it interesting and curious that Protestants object to our theories of how the Real Presence is brought about, when analogically, they do the same thing in the realm of soteriology, coming up with imputed, forensic, extrinsic justification. That is the truly novel innovation in Church history, not the fully-developed doctrine of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation (as opposed to Real Presence) is, not surprisingly at all, a bit harder to substantiate (no pun intended) in the Fathers. For those who understand and accept development of doctrine, however, this presents no difficulty whatsoever.