A rational defense of Chick Tracts


Rpavich has posted on another thread and has asked whether Catholics can show factual evidence that Chick tracts are not true.
He was asked to start a new thread so that the other wasn’t thread jacked. To make things easier I am starting this thread for Rpavich. I have asked him to give us a specific question from one of the Chick tracts to refute…hopefully he will respond here.

Please, I know this has been done to death on CAF but let’s not be uncharitable to Rpavich.

The ball is in your court, Bob. We are waiting…

For any interested here is the thread where this started:


Can someone provide the names of documents about the Eucharist and the real presence before the 1200’s. That was one of the questions that the defender of Chick asked.

I’m Catholic, by the way, I’m just attempting to get the ball rolling with the question.

Dallas Catholic, maybe you could privately email rpavich and tell him that this thread is here.

I, also, second reminding everyone to remain polite. Defending something so dear to us can make people testy but we do have the advantage of the truth on our side.:slight_smile:


Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).


“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).


“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from *Commentary on Proverbs **[A.D. 217]).


“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).


Hope this helps. :tiphat:*


Documents? It’s all through the bible!

Corinthians 1, 11:27: Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

For a start.

Also I can help out if the ‘Dark Dungeons’ tract ever comes up :wink:


Irenaeus denied transubstantiation. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation.

“For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, Christ, after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: ‘Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of His sons; as David says, ‘He who hath renewed the face of the earth.’ He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.” (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Clement clearly states it is a metaphor for FAITH, and the above quote must be read knowing that Clement sees it as a metaphor. Not difficult when the ECF’s are allowed to define what they mean.

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–**of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. **For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)


Again, Tertulian clearly believes its a Figure, at best Consubstantiation.

“Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator.” (Against Marcion, 1:14)

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure…In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’ -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” (Against Marcion, 4:40)

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, **supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure **of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)



The underline game, I’d like to play too:

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)

Pick a verse any verse. I guess we all see what we want to see.



The translation must be confusing me because that sounds like he agrees with the Catholic view.:confused:

I get annoyed when people take the bible out of context but it sounds as if you took, words, out of context.

In fact, everything that you quoted seems to substain the Catholic position on this issue.


No problem.

Let’s start with the documented fact that Alberto Rivera hoaxed Chick and yet Chick continues to print and distribute the tracts and comics.

Documentation? Who Was Alberto Rivera?
“Booksellers’ Group May Expel Chick,” Christianity Today, October 23, 1981, 62.
Gary Metz, “Jack Chick’s Anti-Catholic Alberto Comic Book Is Exposed as a Fraud,” Christianity Today, March 13, 1981.

An honest man would pull all those tracts and comics.
Has Chick done so? No.


I really resent how these “Chick” type Protestants get away with mere allegations, leaving we Catholics the burden of disproving their unfounded claims. Why doesn’t Chick provide the sources showing that BEFORE 1200 everyone believed as he?

If these types think that the Real Presence began with a Council in 1200, then they also believe that the Trinity began with the Council of Nicea in 325?

You will receive many patristic sources supporting the Real Presence. However, you might want to look at the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were split off since before 1200, yet have a similar view on the Eucharist (the Eucharist is not a dividing point.)

Here is one Eastern Orthodox quote on the Eucharist, I’m sure there are others more clear:


Partakers of Divine Nature

The Eucharist “is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His graciousness raised from the dead” (St. Ignatios of Antioch). In it we are offered Christ’s deified flesh, to which we are joined, in order to partake of divine life without confusion or division.

I have a page called “Common Ground” where I tried defending Catholic belief using Protestant/Eastern Orthodox corroboration. (Unfortunately, many proof-links are dead due to lack of maintenance.)


Fact is, many Protestants believe in a “real presence”. Those who spout the symbolic only view are loud, but I don’t think yet a majority of Protestants.


Here’s another Eastern Orthodox link on the Mass:



What is the Orthodox belief regarding the “Sacrifice of the Mass?” Is it the same as Roman Catholicism or different? Could you please explain the similarities and differences? Thank you.


Thank you for your inquiry.

The Divine, or Eucharistic, Liturgy of the Orthodox Church recalls, as one prayer from the Liturgy states, “all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the Third Day, the Ascension into Heaven, and the Second and Glorious Coming. …” The Liturgy is not so much a reenactment of the Mystical Supper or these events as it is a continuation of these events, which are beyond time and space. Unlike many of the Protestant bodies, the Orthodox also see the Eucharistic Liturgy as a bloodless sacrifice, during which the bread and wine we offer to God become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ through the descent and operation of the Holy Spirit, Who effects the change.

As far as the order of the Liturgy, it follows the same basic outline as the Roman Mass – introductory psalms, scripture readings and homily, offering, Eucharistic Kanon and Epiklesis [Consecration], commemorations, the Lord’s Prayer, Holy Communion, and closing prayers with final blessing. However, the Liturgy that is generally celebrated is that of Saint John Chrysostom, which is much, much older than the order of the Mass currently in use among Roman Catholics and the Tridentine Mass that had been used prior to Vatican II.

The Real Presence didn’t begin in 1200. Let the Chicklets prove their case for a change.


Hello Kaycee!

Blessings in this most joyous day in which we celebrate the birth of the Christian Church! Actually... when quoting Origen many people make the same mistake you are making. Let me explain, Origen lived around the year 185 to 251. In this early days of the Christian faith there was not that much dogma defined. Basically what the Apostles Creed stated and that was it. Because of this there was much theological speculation going on. In fact Origen always made sure not to teach contrary to any dogma defined by the Church of his time
Many protestant apologists take some of his more wild speculations and present them as "You see he was teaching against a 2007 dogma" when in fact Origen makes clear that his speculations were not being presented as dogma but as points of dialog and reflection.
I hope this helps you this helps you understand the development of Catholic dogma throughout the ages.

In His Love

A Catholic Deacon


In one of the chick tracts Rome is an island off the coast of Italy.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.