You and I are Eucharist


I hear this language a lot from our RCIA Director during our follow-up sessions for the candidates and catechumens:

*“When you see someone in need - be Eucharist for them”
“We are called to be Eucharist for one another”
“When you give to the poor and hungry, you are Eucharist”. *

I understand what she’s saying - we are called to be Christ for one another - , but I’ve never quite heard it put it this way. Anyone else hear it being put this way?


It’s positive in the sense that it identifies the Eucharist with Christ.

But it’s negative if it equates the type of God’s presence within ourselves(Indwelling) to the type of presence in the Eucharist which is singular, unique since it is substantial.

Since most of the qoutes you gave use it in the sense that it identifies it with ourselves
and given the existing confusion about the Real Presence (alot of Catholics-over 60%- don’t get it)
I personally would’t use that language.


That’s really weird and it waters down the Real Presence. Why can’t these folks just humbly hand on the teaching of Him who sent them? Why do they have to preach their own teaching?

If it’s not outright heresy, it’s definitely close to heresy, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, and injurious to the Church and her practice.


Agreed. That’s a usage that is frought with the potential for grevious misunderstanding and abuse.


While the usage does grate on my ears we still have to bear in mind that Paul says we are the Body of Christ which I do not think is at all clear when people use this Eucharist to one another stuff. It has always struck me as somewhat faddish way of speaking that is “Oh so neat. It just makes me quiver all over just thinking about it.” Dumb in other words!


Yes. I wonder whether that RCIA director was a product of L.A. educational congress. That kind of language seems to permiiate those fringe Catholic ‘progressive’ types. Just cuirious Elzee are you in the L.A. area?


Could it mean that we are all transubstaniated at Mass?


While I can’t comment on the intentions of the person who is saying this (I presume she means well), it is very misleading language.

As has already been pointed out quite well, Christ is really present in the baptized, in the Scriptures, etc. but par excellence and substantially in the Eucharist.

To use ‘Eucharist’ to refer to a non-substantial, spiritual, or sometimes bordering on subjective presence is foolish.

It doesn’t elevate our ability to reflect Christ at all. In reality, this language makes it seem as if Christ is impotent without us, as if Christ cannot be present independently of us. Nonsense.


I should hope not, because that would be heresy in the extreme. We are called to be Christ(like) to one another. We are called to let the graces of God flow through us. We are NEVER to believe that we can be the Sacrificial Lamb or that somehow during mass we bear the burden of the price of sin which Christ took on while He died on the cross!


Understood Prom! It was just a question to generate discussion.




It sounds like their intentions are good. By saying “be Eucharist for one another” they are saying we should support those in need (financial, physical, emotional, and spiritual) and remember that we probably won’t be saved if we just watch out for ourselves and let everyone around us fall without trying to warn them (when it obviously would help to do so). If this stopped here, and there were no other things that are even more questionable that tends to go with this crowd, then it would be fine. Unfortunately, the “We are Eucharist, We are Church” crowd tends to support things that are heretical, or if not heretical at least are bad ideas. These groups tend to encourage the ordination of women, the ordination of married men and women, intercommunion, not going to confession, immoral lifestyles, new age and other non-Christian philosophies integrating with Catholicism, etc.

If people simply recite earlier writings word for word, that doesn’t allow much opportunity to think and grow in your faith- your learning stops at simply being able to memorize words. I think the “we are Eucharist” crowd is way off…but there wouldn’t be such a draw for it if there wasn’t a legitimate need that isn’t being met. They try to meet that need- unfortunately they bring a lot of bad theology with them.


We are NOT “eucharist” to each other.
True, we are the body of Christ and brothers and sisters, bearing Christ to each other spiritually. But the Eucharist is unique.
It is the transubstantiated, living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine. The Eucharist is THAT and ONLY THAT.

Folks should not go around calling themselves “Eucharist”…


While our parish doesn’t encourage all of these things publicly, you’ve pegged the mindset and ‘off the record’ comments of many of its leaders (religious and laity) well.


Eucharist - (Middle English eukarist, from Old French eucariste, from Late Latin eucharistia, from Greek eukharistiā, from eukharistos, grateful, thankful : eu-, eu- + kharizesthai, to show favor (from kharis, grace; see gher-2 in Indo-European roots).]

Eucharist means thanksgiving… how can somebody be thanksgiving? I should be a thanksgiving to everyone?

I can be helpful but I cannot be spiritually nourishing as the Body of Christ is.


From Ask An Apologist:

There is a current fallacy floating around in some Catholic circles that equates the Eucharist with the Word of God and the congregation, gathered for the Mass. The Eucharist is the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ who is God and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Only the Father and the Holy Spirit are equal to Him. To say otherwise is not only the result of fuzzy thinking, it’s heresy!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.


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