Redeemed Zoomer vs. Transubstantiation: Does John 6 Prove Him Right?

Catholics are fond of going to John 6 to prove Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist.

But Redeemed Zoomer released a video some time back arguing that Christ’s words in John 6 actually prove false the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

What’s that argument?

And does it work?

Stick around and you’ll find out.

Redeemed Zoomer’s Argument

All right. Let’s begin by trying to get a handle on Redeemed Zoomer’s argument.

He starts with a logical entailment that follows from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Consider a scenario where someone who has no faith at all goes up and receives the Eucharist in Holy Communion.

He doesn’t intend to receive Jesus’ body and blood. Yet, according to Catholic teaching, he does receive the actual body and blood of Jesus because Catholics believe Jesus’ body and blood are present in the Sacrament regardless of whether he believes or not.

And Redeemed Zoomer is correct there.

But Redeemed Zoomer argues that’s not possible because Jesus says in John 6:54:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”

For Redeemed Zoomer, you can’t eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood and not have eternal life.

Here’s Redeemed Zoomer in his own words:

Redeemed Zoomer:

“According to transubstantiation, it is possible for somebody who has no faith at all and never will to be eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood.

“But that’s not possible according to John 6.

“In John 6, Jesus says, ‘Whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life and will remain in him.’

“In the Reformed view, this works because it is believers who have eternal life that are receiving the body and blood of Christ and will therefore live forever.

“But in the Catholic view, there are people who do not believe, who do not have eternal life, that are still eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood.

“Once again, John 6 says, ‘Whoever eats his flesh has eternal life.’ But Catholics believe there are people who eat his flesh and do not have eternal life.”

Now, Redeemed Zoomer goes on to express this argument in a more formal way with what logicians call a contrapositive.

A contrapositive is a logically equivalent way of stating a conditional proposition by negating both the antecedent and the consequent and reversing their order.

If the original statement is:

If A, then B.

Its contrapositive is:

If not B, then not A.

The original statement and its contrapositive are always logically equivalent. If one is true, the other is true.

Consider this proposition, for example:

If something is a dog, then it is an animal.

Now consider its contrapositive:

If something is not an animal, then it is not a dog.

The contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original conditional statement.

This follows from the logic of what logicians call a modus tollens argument, which runs:

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.

For example:

If something is a dog, then it is an animal.
This thing is not an animal.
Therefore, it is not a dog.

Let’s now see how Redeemed Zoomer applies this logic of the contrapositive to John 6:54.

Redeemed Zoomer:

“So let’s look at the logical contrapositive of this. If A implies B, the contrapositive is that not B implies not A.

“So if eating Christ’s flesh implies you have eternal life, then not believing and not having eternal life implies that you do not eat the flesh of Christ or drink his blood.”

All right. So here’s what that looks like.

The original conditional statement, based on Jesus’ words in John 6:54, is:

If a person eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood, then he has eternal life.

The contrapositive of that statement, therefore, is:

If a person doesn’t have eternal life, then he doesn’t eat Jesus’ flesh or drink his blood.

Now, for Redeemed Zoomer, that contrapositive is irreconcilable with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

And that brings us to his overall argument against transubstantiation.

Redeemed Zoomer:

“But you see, this contradicts transubstantiation because if transubstantiation is true, then there are some people who eat the flesh of Christ and don’t have eternal life, which contradicts Jesus’ statement that everyone who eats his flesh has eternal life.”

So Redeemed Zoomer’s overall argument looks like this:

Premise 1: If transubstantiation were true, then some people—those who don’t have faith—would be eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood without having eternal life.

Premise 2: But it’s not possible that someone eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood and does not have eternal life.

Conclusion: Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be true.

The Problem With the Contrapositive

All right. Let’s get to our responses now.

I’ll take the contrapositive part first.

Consider Redeemed Zoomer’s contrapositive of John 6:54:

If a person doesn’t have eternal life, then he doesn’t eat Jesus’ flesh or drink his blood.

Now, based on what Redeemed Zoomer said in the earlier clip, the “eating” in the consequent is conceptualized as only sacramental eating, without any consideration of the disposition with which one eats.

So the consequent amounts to saying:

A person doesn’t eat Jesus’ flesh or drink his blood in the Sacrament—period.

And that means Redeemed Zoomer interprets the antecedent in the original conditional statement to mean the same thing.

But here’s the problem:

We reject that meaning of the antecedent in the original conditional statement.

Recall Redeemed Zoomer’s original conditional statement:

If a person eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood, he has eternal life.

We don’t believe the “eating” in that antecedent is meant to be interpreted as merely sacramental eating without any consideration of one’s disposition.

Rather, we interpret that antecedent to mean sacramental eating with faith.

And the reason we interpret it that way is because the Church teaches that only receiving the Sacrament with faith produces eternal life within us.

Remember, Jesus didn’t just say, “He who eats.”

He said:

“He who eats has eternal life.”

And we have good reason to believe Jesus envisioned partaking of his flesh with faith.

The entire preceding context in John 6 is about belief in him.

Faith is required to assent to his Eucharistic teaching and thereby required to partake of it.

So when Jesus says that eating his flesh brings about eternal life, it’s reasonable to conclude that he assumes one is eating with faith.

This is consistent with St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:29, where he demands that Christians discern the body before partaking of the Eucharist lest they be condemned.

So, for Catholics, the original conditional statement is as follows:

If a person eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood in the Sacrament with faith, then he has eternal life.

Thus, the contrapositive of that conditional statement is:

If a person doesn’t have eternal life, then he does not eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood in the Sacrament with faith.

Notice that this contrapositive doesn’t say the person isn’t eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in the Sacrament, like Redeemed Zoomer’s contrapositive states.

Rather, it says a person is eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in the Sacrament without faith.

Now, that contrapositive is consistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation because it allows for Christ’s flesh and blood to be present in the Sacrament even though someone receives it without faith.

The Council of Trent on Receiving the Eucharist

The Council of Trent made this distinction in its thirteenth session, chapter eight.

The Council Fathers stated:

“Now as regards the use, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this holy sacrament.

“For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit, sinners; others spiritually only, those, to wit, who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by the lively faith which worketh by love, made sensible of the fruit and utility thereof; whereas the third receive it both sacramentally and spiritually;

“And these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, that they approach this divine table clothed with the wedding garment.”

Notice that first way:

“Some receive it sacramentally only.”

That refers to those who receive the Sacrament without faith.

And that’s the way Redeemed Zoomer interprets Jesus’ teaching about “eating and drinking,” which in turn logically generates the contrapositive that conflicts with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

But, to state it again, that’s not how Catholics interpret Jesus’ teaching.

Rather, the eating and drinking is understood to be a partaking of the Sacrament with faith, since Jesus speaks of eternal life as the effect of such eating and drinking.

Thus, Redeemed Zoomer’s contrapositive argument presents a problem for the doctrine of transubstantiation if and only if we interpret Jesus’ words to be referring to sacramental eating alone—an act of eating without any consideration of one’s disposition of faith.

Since we reject that interpretation, Redeemed Zoomer’s contrapositive doesn’t pose a threat to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Putting the Argument in Modus Tollens Form

Now, I realize that might be a bit hard to follow.

So, to make it clearer, let’s look at Redeemed Zoomer’s argument in its modus tollens form.

Remember how I said earlier that the contrapositive follows from the logic of a modus tollens argument?

I think seeing it this way can be helpful.

Here it is:

Premise 1: If a person eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood, then he has eternal life.

Premise 2: A person doesn’t have eternal life.

Conclusion: Therefore, that person doesn’t eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood.

Redeemed Zoomer interprets that conclusion to mean not eating Jesus’ flesh when partaking of the Sacrament, which he sees as conflicting with transubstantiation.

Now, the problem here is ambiguity in terms.

What does Redeemed Zoomer mean by “eat Jesus’ flesh” in premise one?

Does he mean sacramental eating alone?

Or does he mean sacramental eating with faith?

If he interprets it as mere sacramental eating, then premise one is a non sequitur.

Eternal life doesn’t necessarily follow from mere sacramental eating.

Rather, eternal life follows only if one sacramentally eats with faith.

Since premise one is a non sequitur on this interpretation, the conclusion about a person not eating Jesus’ flesh in the Sacrament doesn’t follow.

In which case, it doesn’t pose a threat to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Well, what if he interprets “eating Jesus’ flesh” in premise one as sacramental eating with faith, like Catholics do?

Then premise one would become:

If a person eats Jesus’ flesh with faith, then he has eternal life.

That’s true.

And the denial of that consequent would logically entail this conclusion:

Therefore, a person doesn’t eat Jesus’ flesh with faith.

Notice that conclusion doesn’t deny that a person partakes of Jesus’ flesh in the Eucharist.

Rather, it only says that a person receives Jesus’ flesh without faith.

And, as we said earlier, that doesn’t pose a threat to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

So Redeemed Zoomer’s argument is problematic due to ambiguity in its terms.

And depending on how you disambiguate those terms, the argument either doesn’t go through because premise one is a non sequitur, or the conclusion is consistent with transubstantiation.

Hopefully, looking at Redeemed Zoomer’s contrapositive argument in its modus tollens form was helpful.

Does the Overall Argument Beg the Question?

Now, with all this in hand, let’s touch briefly on Redeemed Zoomer’s formulation of his overall argument against transubstantiation.

Recall that he stated:

Redeemed Zoomer:

“But you see, this contradicts transubstantiation because if transubstantiation is true, then there are some people who eat the flesh of Christ and don’t have eternal life, which contradicts Jesus’ statement that everyone who eats his flesh has eternal life.”

Again, here’s that argument in its modus tollens form:

Premise 1: If transubstantiation were true, then some people—those who don’t have faith—would be eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood without having eternal life.

Premise 2: But it’s not possible that someone eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood and does not have eternal life.

Conclusion: Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be true.

The problem here is premise two:

It’s not possible that someone eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks his blood and does not have eternal life.

What’s the problem?

It begs the question.

Think about it.

The only way it wouldn’t be possible to eat Jesus’ flesh in the Sacrament without having eternal life is if transubstantiation weren’t true.

For if transubstantiation were true, as we noted earlier, a person could eat Jesus’ flesh in the Sacrament and not have eternal life.

Transubstantiation entails that Christ’s flesh and blood are present regardless of whether a person believes or not.

So, to get premise two, Redeemed Zoomer must assume transubstantiation is false.

But that’s precisely what he’s trying to prove in the conclusion.

To assume the falsity of transubstantiation in order to prove the falsity of transubstantiation is called begging the question.

It’s also called circular reasoning.

Now, Redeemed Zoomer might counter that he’s not assuming the falsity of transubstantiation to get premise two, since he bases premise two on Jesus’ words in John 6:54:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”

But then we have to ask:

How is Redeemed Zoomer interpreting those words?

Whatever interpretation it is, it must generate premise two of his overall argument.

So how would Redeemed Zoomer need to interpret those words of Jesus to generate premise two?

The only way I see is if Redeemed Zoomer interprets “eating flesh and drinking blood” in a way that excludes the doctrine of transubstantiation.

In other words, those who eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood are only those who have faith and eternal life.

Redeemed Zoomer actually stated this very thing in the opening clip we played earlier:

“In the Reformed view, this works because it is believers who have eternal life that are receiving the body and blood of Christ and will therefore live forever.”

But to interpret Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh in a way that excludes the doctrine of transubstantiation is just to beg the question, since that’s what Redeemed Zoomer is arguing for in the first place.

Thus, Redeemed Zoomer’s overall argument against transubstantiation fails because it begs the question.

Conclusion

In the end, Redeemed Zoomer’s argument against transubstantiation doesn’t succeed because it either misinterprets Jesus’ words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood or assumes precisely what it’s trying to prove.

John 6:54, properly understood, is perfectly compatible with the Catholic distinction between receiving Christ sacramentally and receiving him fruitfully through faith.

And therefore, it poses no challenge to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Well, my friends, that’s it for today.

If you found this video helpful, make sure to like and comment below and share it with someone who might need to hear this.

And if you haven’t subscribed to the channel already, make sure to do so.

For more resources, check out Catholic Answers’ website at Catholic.com and my personal website at KarloBroussard.com.

If you want me to come out and speak at your event, visit CatholicAnswersSpeakers.com.

Lastly, I’d like for you to consider supporting me and Catholic Answers over on Patreon.

I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support.

You can find me over at DoctorKarlo.com, with “doctor” spelled out.

Thanks for hanging out with me today, friends.

I’ll see you next time.