Homework for Class 2 : The Eucharist

Articles to read

Why the Eucharist is Important

Definition of Eucharistic Positions

Who Can Receive Communion?

Overcoming Ickiness

Biblical Support for the Eucharist

Support for the Eucharist from the Church Fathers

Weight of Historical Evidence

Eucharistic Miracles

Answers to Eucharistic Objections

Specific Examples of Typology - Sacrifice & Passover

I Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ!

Scripture

The Gospel of John

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Paragraphs 610-611, 1322-1419

Why the Eucharist is Important

Many non-Catholics are quite happy to accept the Catholic teaching regarding the Real
Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as something that the Catholic Church believes.
They say that the Catholic Church has these funny ideas about their communion rites, and
believes some odd things about the bread and wine used in their services. But, they
continue, does that really matter? Their view seems to be We all have some different ideas
about the non-essentials, but on the essentials we agree. Can't we all just get along?

Many Catholics seem to agree with them, choosing to remain silent on the matter of the
Eucharist when it comes up. Many Catholics do not seem to understand the importance of the
Eucharist, and what it actually means.

To suggest that Catholics should view their distinctive view of the Eucharist as important and
be aware of how it differs from the non-Catholic position does not mean that a Catholic
cannot or should not be friendly with a non-Catholic far from it! Such friendships are
wonderful things, and are in fact a source of opportunities for ecumenical and apologetic
dialog. It is also a very good thing to work with non-Catholics on projects where there is no
theological conflict (picketing abortion mills, running soup kitchens) and so forth.

However, compromising, downplaying or ignoring the Eucharist is not something that

Catholics are permitted to do, nor is it a position consistent with the beliefs of
Catholics or non-Catholics to suggest that what the Catholic Church believes about the
Eucharist is non-essential.

To a Catholic, the Eucharist is neither more nor less than Jesus Christ Himself in the flesh. He
is really, truly and substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine. Because
Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is divine, when Catholics interact with the Eucharist, that
interaction is worship and adoration. Although non-Catholics often accuse Catholics of
worshiping statues and the saints when we in fact do not, the fact of the matter is that we do
worship (and admit to worshiping) something which looks to them to be, and they think is, a
small wafer of bread. Catholics do worship the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is God.

Protestants do not worship the Eucharist, because they do not believe it is God. They believe
that it is nothing more than a small wafer of bread.

It is these two positions the Catholics worshiping something which the Protestants think is
not God and the Protestants not worshiping something which the Catholics think is God
which show just how important and essential the Eucharist is.

As far as the Protestants are concerned, the Catholics are guilty of idolatry worshiping
something which is not God with the adoration and reverence due to God-alone. As far as the
Catholics are concerned, the Protestants are guilty of not worshiping God as He wants to be
worshiped (the verse Do this in memory of me and Jesus' words if you do not eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you clearly show how important
the Eucharist is to Catholic worship).
In essence, both Protestants and Catholics have to believe that the other is in some way
not a real Christian because of their attitude to the Eucharist. Protestants believe Catholics
are idolaters, Catholics believe Protestants are not worshiping properly.

It does not matter if you, or another Catholic, or a Protestant, say that you, he or she does not
believe that himself it is the necessary logical step from the professed beliefs of the two
groups.

Understanding this and bringing this issue up whenever the issue of the Eucharist, or
communion, or the Lord's Supper is mentioned, is essential to apologetics. Without this
understanding, no progress can be made. Before any apologetics regarding the Eucharist can
proceed, it is vital that both sides understand not only what the other's views are, but also
what they mean when logically extended into other spheres.

Some people may react very badly to the notion that the Catholic Church is calling them, in
some way, deficient Christians. And some Catholics will react badly to being called idolaters.
But if we can get past these emotive aspects, then and only then is true dialog possible.
We do ourselves no favors by pretending that something as central as what we believe to be
God and what we do not believe to be God is unessential.

Definition of Eucharistic Theological Positions

Effective apologetics relies on many things, but one of the first is making sure that both sides
in the debate understand what is being discussed. This means that not only do both sides have
to understand what the other side actually teaches (for example, if non-Catholics think
Catholics believe Mary is God then no effective discussion can take place!) but also both
sides have to agree on using the same words to mean the same things (at least for the duration
of the debate!)

Nowhere is this more important than when it comes to discussing the Eucharist. Most
Christian denominations practice some sort of shared meal patterned after the last supper
mentioned in the Gospels. However, what each denomination believes about what takes place
there differs substantially even though they may use the same words! The most common
words which are used with different meanings are real presence, Eucharist and
communion.

It is important when engaging in apologetics to not interpret the fact that different Christians
use to the same words as indicating they mean the same things. It is vital to determine what
each person actuallymeans.

There are a large number of subtly different positions concerning the Eucharist, and most of
these vary only in very small, theologically complex ways. A complete understanding of
these positions is beyond the scope of these articles, and is also unnecessary for general
apologetics. The vast number of different theological positions can be broken down into four
major views; transubstantiation, consubstantiation,spiritual presence and symbolic. Each of
these is broadly defined below, together with notes on which denominations generally hold
these views.

Transubstantiation
This is the correct theological view and is supported by the Biblical account and the writings
of the Church Fathers. This view is held by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
(and it is only in these Churches that transubstantiation actually takes place).

Transubstantiation refers to the fact that the substance of bread and wine are annihilated and
cease to exist at the moment of consecration. The substance of the bread and wine disappears
and is replaced by the substance of Jesus Christ's body and blood. The Eucharistic elements
are no longer bread and wine, and are really the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

They do not appear to be anything other than bread and wine, however. This appearance is
referred to as the accidents.

The important points to note about transubstantiation are that;

The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ

Jesus Christ is really present in a physical way

The substance of bread and wine are not there any longer

Consubstantiation

This doctrine is held by a number of Anglicans and Lutherans (although Lutherans do not like
to use the term and instead prefer the phrase sacramental union as the word
consubstantiation was used for a Medieval doctrine with which they disagree. However, the
broad outlines of the doctrine are the same).

This doctrine is similar to transubstantiation in that it speaks of the real presence of Jesus
Christ. However, it does not teach that the substance of the bread and wine disappear or are
replaced, but rather that they exist alongside the substance of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is believed
that when someone receives communion in a Lutheran congregation he or she is
receiving both bread and wine and the body and blood.

(Note that this is incorrect Jesus is not present in a physical or spiritual way in any form of
Eucharist or communion except that of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches).

The important points to note about consubstantiation are that;

It is thought to be both the body and blood of Christ and bread and wine

Jesus Christ is thought to be really physically present

The substance of bread and wine are still there

Spiritual Presence

Some denominations among them the Methodists believe that while no physical change
takes place in either appearance or substance, a spiritual change takes place. Namely, that
Jesus Christ is spirituallypresent in the bread and wine. The bread and wine remain bread and
wine, but it is thought that Jesus Christ is spiritually (although not physically) present in
them. This is referred to, again, as the real presence.

(Again, this is an incorrect notion Jesus Christ is not present in any form spiritual or
physical in any communion outside of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.)

The important points to note about spiritual presence are that;

The bread and wine remain bread and wine

Jesus Christ is thought to be really present but only in a spiritual way, not a physical
one

Symbolic

The vast majority of Protestant groups hold to a symbolic view of communion a view
which is, ironically enough, entirely accurate in so far as it refers to their Lord's supper
service! This view refers to the fact that the bread and wine are just bread and wine, and the
sharing of them in a communal meal is simply a symbolic expression of the unity of the
congregation. It is often regarded as no more significant or important than sharing a meal
outside of a worship service, but some Protestants believe that because it takes place in the
context of a prayer service or worship meeting that it takes on an additional significance.

The symbolic element of the Eucharist is, in fact, true for all Christian denominations,
Catholics included. It is just that the Catholic Church goes further and actually does what
Jesus commands several times in the Bible and has the Real Presence (that is, the physical
and spiritual Real Presence) of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Protestants who believe in a symbolic communion rarely use the words Eucharist or Real
Presence.

The Christian denominations which are mentioned above as believing in each of these
positions should be understood as the ones which generally hold these positions. Individual
believers, pastors or congregations may hold different positions. A specific note must be
made about the Anglican Communion (represented in the USA by the Episcopalians) these
Christians are permitted to believe a number of different positions, and it is essential when
debating with these people to determine what they believe.

A note should also be made about the use of bread and wine in the liturgy of the Eucharist.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches (and a number of other Christian denominations) use
bread and wine exclusively, while the others use other substances (including, but not limited
to, crackers and grape juice). The Catholic Church mandates the use of bread and wine for a
very simple reason Jesus used bread and wine at the Last Supper, and not anything else!

The tradition of the Roman Church has been to use unleavened bread, while other Churches
within the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have used leavened bread. These
choices are a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine, and could although are unlikely to
be changed in the future.

Who Can Receive Communion? (CCC 1384-1390)

The Catholic Church rightly regards the Eucharist as the most important of the
seven sacraments of the Church as contained within what appears to be a small wafer of
bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist is also perhaps
the most obvious division between Catholics and Protestants.

Unlike many Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church practices what is called closed
communion. While other Christians are often (although not always) happy to welcome
Christians of a different denomination to share in their communion services, ordinances of
the Lord's supper or whatever they might call their sharing of bread and wine (this position
is called open communion), the Catholic Church does not allow non-Catholics to receive the
Eucharist.

Many non-Catholics (and even non-Christians) are puzzled and sometimes offended by this.
This attitude is viewed as damaging ecumenism and fostering division. A Catholic apologist
must be prepared to not only explain what the Church teaches about the reception of the
Eucharist, but also why she teaches this. Closed communion does not lead to division;
division leads to closed communion.

In addition to the Eucharist being closed to non-Catholics, there are certain Catholics who are
unable to receive the Eucharist. A Catholic apologist must be prepared to address this issue,
as the unworthy reception of communion causes both scandal to the Church and very real
spiritual damage to the individual who is receiving communion unworthily.

What must a Catholic do to receive communion and why?

In order to receive communion, a Catholic must be in a state of grace (that is, not in a state of
mortal sin), have been to confession since his committing his last mortal sin, believe in the
doctrine of transubstantiation and observe the Eucharistic fast.

The Catholic Church teaches that a Catholic must be in a state of grace following I
Corinthians 11:27-28; Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man
examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

The Didache (an early Church document which is regarded by many as being the first
catechism) expresses this need to be in a state of grace as well, but does so by specifically
referencing the sacrament of confession. But first make confession of your faults, so that
your sacrifice may be a pure one (Didache 14).

The need to be in a state of grace is the most important requirement for receiving
communion, and may never be dispensed with. If a Catholic (or, indeed, anyone) received the
Eucharist while in a state ofmortal sin then he or she would be guilty of profaning the
Eucharist guilty of profaning God Himself!
This requirement is, ironically enough, the one which is most often ignored. While most
Catholics do not commit certain mortal sins (generally speaking the ones which are illegal) an
unknown number commit mortal sins which have become socially acceptable and then go
and receive the Eucharist. Among the most common of these mortal sins
are adultery, fornication, use of contraception and material participation in abortion.
Committing these sins and then receiving the Eucharist (especially for a public figure such as
a politician who creates or votes for pro-abortion laws) not only spiritually damages the
Catholic who is guilty of the mortal sin of profaning the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but
also causes grave scandal to the Church.

The Church teaches that the Catholic must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Technically speaking, this is covered by the necessity to be free of mortal sin as denial of
the doctrine is heresy, which is a mortal sin.

This requirement is a very important one for Catholic apologists to convey to those they
speak to as there are a number of Catholics who either do not believe in the Real Presence,
or who believe something different to what the Church actually teaches. The various
positions concerning what the Eucharist is are discussed in a separate article.

The Church requires belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation for two main reasons. Firstly,
she is following I Corinthians 11:29, For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the
body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. Even if the person is not in a state of mortal
sin, if he does not see (discern) that the Eucharist is the body and blood (the doctrine of
transubstantiation) then he will bring judgment upon himself.

Secondly, membership of the Church is dependent on (among other things) orthodox belief.
To deny such a central doctrine of the Church as transubstantiation is to deny the central
aspect of Catholicism. At that point, the individual is unable to to receive communion
because he or she has effectively left the Church.

The Catholic must adhere to the Eucharistic fast. In Canon law, this is described as One who
is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception
only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion
(CIC 919 1). Elderly people, those who are ill, and those who are taking care of them are
excused from the Eucharistic fast (CIC 191 3). Priests and deacons may not allow someone
who has not held to the Eucharistic fast unless the bishop has given express permission (cf.
CIC 89).

This teaching (which is not a dogma or doctrine, but rather a discipline, and therefore can
and has been changed) exists out of respect for Jesus Christ; it is not considered respectful
to have Jesus Christ mingle in the stomach with ordinary food as if He were nothing more
than a simple meal. The Eucharist is far more than that, and the rules governing which
Catholics can receive it reflect that.

Why can non-Catholic Christians not receive communion?

Non-Catholics cannot (under ordinary circumstances) receive the Eucharist. This is for
essentially the same reasons as exist which might prevent a Catholic from receiving the
Eucharist most non-Catholics deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, for example.
In addition, Scripture makes it very clear that the Eucharist is the highest sign of Christian
unity (I Corinthians 10:17 - Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for
we all partake of the one bread. If non-Catholics were to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic
Church this would imply a unity which does not, regrettably, exist.

When the Catholic apologist is defending the Church's practice of closed communion it is
often advantageous to ask a question of the non-Catholic who is offended or puzzled; why
would a non-Catholic wantto receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church? If the non-Catholic
believes what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, then why is he or she not Catholic? If
the non-Catholic does not believe what the Church teaches, then why does he or she wish to
participate in what he or she simply considers to be a symbolic communion?

Why Non-Christians cannot receive the Eucharist

Although the Church welcomes non-Christians to participate in the liturgy of the Mass and
other prayers to the degree their conscience allows them, she does not allow them to receive
communion. It should be obvious to most people the reasons why this is firstly, non-
Christians do not believe that the Eucharist is in any way relevant; it is not even a symbolic
meal to them. Participation in the Eucharistic meal implies a unity which non-Christians
themselves would not be happy implying (no non-Christian would wish to imply that they
believed any of the claims of the Christian Church involving Jesus Christ, for example).

If non-Christians are made aware of what the Catholic Church actually believes about
the Eucharist (few of them actually are aware of the doctrine of transubstantiation and what it
means) then most of them are very happy to not participate out of a degree of respect for
Catholic beliefs.

In addition, non-Christians have not been baptized. Although many non-Catholics do not
acknowledge this, baptism is the gateway to the other sacraments (including the Eucharist).
Therefore, they are unable to receive communion.

Catholics receiving communion at the services of other denominations

The flipside of non-Catholics not being allowed to receive the Eucharist is Catholics not
being permitted to receive communion at non-Catholic services. Many non-Catholics (who
have open communion) are offended by Catholic refusal to participate in their communal
meal. Explaining the reasons for this (and, indeed, explaining to Catholics who think they are
or should be allowed to participate in other denominations' services) is a wonderful piece of
apologetics.

Very simply, to participate in the communion service of any denomination implies a unity of
thought and belief (especially over what is believed concerning the Eucharist) which simply
does not exist. The Catholic who participated in communion in a Protestant service is tacitly
saying that particular Protestant denomination is correct in its teaching. As all Protestants
differ from the Catholic Church in one or more essential doctrines, this is effectively saying
that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Overcoming Ickiness
A number of people, including some of the followers of Jesus who were first told about the
command to eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:60), find the notion of consuming
human flesh to be repulsive and horrifying. Their reasoning is that Jesus would never ask us
to do something so contrary to our being they see the instruction as mandating cannibalism.

This can be a major stumbling block for people who are intellectually convinced of the truth
of the Roman Catholic Church's claims about the Eucharist; it is necessary for the apologist
to overcome these emotional reactions and explain the appropriate reaction.

Appearance versus Substance

A rare, although serious, form of confusion is a failure to understand the Catholic Church's
teaching regarding what the Body and Blood taste and feel like. The Church teaches that
Christ is present under the appearance of bread and wine the Eucharistic elements look,
feel, smell and taste exactly like bread and wine. They even have the physical properties of
bread and wine the Body will nourish you as bread does, and the Blood will get you drunk
as wine does!

Some people are under the mistaken belief that the Body and Blood have the appearance of
flesh and blood. The apologist must assure them that, aside from a few well-
documented Eucharistic miracles, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and
wine.

This itself can also be a source of confusion why does just the appearance change? Surely
it would be easier for humans to believe the truth of the Real Presence if the Eucharist
looked, smelt, felt and tasted like actual flesh and blood?

While this may be true, it is important to realize that Jesus praises those who have not seen,
but still believe (John 20:29) this shows the strength of their faith. Also, in His mercy, Jesus
chooses to allow us to physically commune with Him via the eating of His actual flesh and
blood without the unpleasantness of having to eat raw flesh and drink actual blood (neither of
which are particularly palatable for humans).

The Objection of Cannibalism

Many non-Catholics call Catholics cannibals, as they claim to eat human flesh and drink
human blood. These people say that Jesus would never instruct us to consume the flesh of a
fellow person and if Catholics believe He did why do we not eat the flesh and drink the
blood of other people in order to commune with them? Parallels are drawn between
Eucharistic communion and the cannibalistic societies of (for example) pre-Columbian
America which ate flesh and drank blood in order to gain the strength of their enemies.

These arguments are false because they do not take into account a number of important facts.
Firstly, the definition of cannibalism is wrong because cannibals eat the dead flesh the
Eucharist is not dead, but is in fact more alive than we can ever hope to be this side of our
own death! However, this may be a semantic distinction which non-Catholics do not care for.

Catholics consume the flesh of Jesus Christ because we are told specifically to do so this
appears explicitly in the Bible and is supported by extra-Biblical sources. We consume His
flesh because He is asacrifice for us and for our sins and according to the
Biblical typology of sacrifice we are required to consume the flesh of a sacrifice to benefit
from it.

Jesus offers Himself willingly for us He was not forced into it, and in fact does so entirely
out of love. The victims of cannibals are not willing victims, nor are they offered in genuine
sacrifice to God; Jesus Christ was.

Catholics do not participate in any other form of flesh-eating ritual because we are
not specifically told to do so, and because to kill someone and eat their flesh would be a clear
violation of the prohibition against murder. Even if someone were to offer themselves to be
eaten, or a corpse was found, to eat that flesh would be disrespectful to the body of a creature
made in the image and likeness of Almighty God.

Jesus wouldn't ask us to do this

Many Protestants agree on all these points, but raise the question that Jesus would not ask us
to eat His flesh then, as we would be being disrespectful towards God Himself. Also, they
maintain that God would not ask us to do something so contrary to common sense and our
nature.

It is true that if humans had decided to take Jesus Christ, kill Him and eat His flesh that
would have been disrespectful and blasphemous but Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice,
and also told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, it is disrespectful
to not obey His direct command!

While it is true that to eat the flesh of a human being is contrary to our natural state, there are
many things which Jesus asks us to do which are contrary to our natural inclinations. Jesus
tells us to seek outsufferings, so that we may be made holier, for example. Jesus also gives us
moral codes and laws which are very hard to keep to, precisely because they are against our
natural (post-Fall) inclination to seek out pleasure. The whole message of Jesus is contrary to
our natural inclinations and so doing something which seems to be strange and repulsive
but is, in fact, the source of the greatest strength, grace and holiness is only to be expected
from the great and wonderful mystery that is Christianity!

Biblical Support for the Eucharist

Many Protestants make claims like If Jesus had intended eating His flesh and drinking His
blood to be the center of Christianity, He would have made it clear. And if He would have
made it clear, the New Testament writers would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to
make sure they made it clear. But they don't, so it can't be true!

This argument falls down on two points; the first is that the doctrine of sola scriptura is false
and a lie. It is a simple fact that certain central doctrines (such as the Incarnation and the
Trinity) are not explicitly given in the Bible. For these doctrines extra-Biblical documents are
the primary source of knowledge. There is much extra-Biblical support for the Eucharist also.

The second point is that the Eucharist is clearly shown in the Bible! You just need to know
where to look, and to ensure that you are reading the Bible with the appropriate
understanding.
The Great Eucharistic Discourse & Explanatory Passages

The primary Biblical source of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is John 6:35-71 in
here we read the clear words of Jesus if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink
His blood you have no life in you. This is very clear indeed when read in a literal manner,
but many Protestants seem to think that this passage should not be read in a literal manner.

This is somewhat of a ludicrous charge John 6:53 begins with the words Amen, Amen, I
say unto you (or Truly, truly, I say unto you, depending on translation). This meant that
Jesus was formally swearing by God that what He was about to say was perfectly true. Would
He have done this if He did not mean to be taken literally? Reading onwards (John 6:53-58)
we see that Jesus confirms His teaching several times, saying His flesh is real food and His
blood is real drink. This is not symbolic language!

When Jesus utters these words, there is confusion (John 6:52) and when it is explained many
think it is a hard teaching (more than likely a repulsive teaching, eating the flesh and
drinking the blood of a fellow human!) (John 6:60). But Jesus does not soft-pedal the
teaching, nor does he correct those who leave Him (John 6:66). These people leave Him
because He is teaching that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood; they are interpreting
that literally and are unwilling to accept this. Jesus does not correct them showing that they
understood the teaching correctly, but were just unable to accept it as something they should
do. He is willing to let them leave Him over this issue is Jesus so callous that he would let
people leave Him over a mistake? Or would He try to correct them if they had, in fact,
misunderstood Him?

A number of Protestants cite John 6:63, saying that Jesus must mean some sort of symbolic
communion with Him for the flesh is of no avail. There are a number of reasons why this
is a false and incorrect interpretation.

Firstly, hasn't Jesus just spent several verses telling His followers that He is speaking
literally? Would Jesus want to confuse His followers on such an important point as this?

Secondly, the correct interpretation of the word flesh in this passage is found in I
Corinthians 2:14-3:4 the flesh means the sinful aspects of mankind, while the spirit
refers to the God-centered aspects of mankind. Jesus would not say that the flesh is of no
avail and mean that physical things were in some way bad; this would go against the clear
teaching that the physical world is good.

Most importantly, the Protestant interpretation of John 6:35-71 relies on the fact that the
phrase to eat flesh and drink blood can mean to commune with, but this is not the case and
it is not how Jesus' disciples would have heard it. In multiple passages of Scripture (Psalm
14:4, 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, 49:26, Micah 3:3, II Samuel 23:15-17, Revelation 17:6, 17:16) the
eating of a person's flesh is shown as being a metaphor for assault, violence or other attacks.
It is never shown as being a metaphor for communion, spiritual or otherwise, and this is not
how the disciples would have heard and understood it. Would Jesus have used a metaphor He
knew people would misinterpret?

Sacrifice
The typology of sacrifice from the Old Testament is very important to the understanding of
the Eucharist, and we find much support for it in Scripture. In order to benefit from a
sacrifice, the people for whom the sacrifice was being made would eat the flesh of the animal
sacrificed (Exodus 12:8, 12:46). Jesus is the lamb of God (John 1:29), the paschal lamb
who has been sacrificed (I Corinthians 5:7). This is how our eating the flesh of Jesus is a
communion we participate in the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (I
Corinthians 10:16); it is this physical communion (via eating His flesh) that allows us to
benefit from His sacrifice. But the words must be understood literally in order to denote a
communion.

Prohibition against eating blood

Many people are shocked by the idea of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a human
being, and the Jews were no exception (as is shown by John 6:60). In addition, the Jews
were prohibited from eating blood (something which survives today with the Kosher laws).
How can Jesus have instructed observant Jews to drink His blood?

The answer lies in Genesis 9:4 and Deuteronomy 12:23; both of these passages say that
blood is life. In the sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant, the Jews atoned for sin, but did
not enter into the full supernatural life with God. With the once and for all sacrifice under the
new covenant (the Christian covenant) we are brought into full supernatural life hence we
consume the blood, which is the life.

In addition, the prohibition against blood (and all other aspects of the Mosaic dietary laws)
were lifted by the new covenant.

Condemnation for Unworthy Reception of the Eucharist

A number of Protestants claim that Jesus did, in fact, intend people to eat His flesh and drink
His blood, but only in a symbolic manner. That is, He intended them to gather together for a
service where bread and wine was eaten, but that bread and wine remains bread and wine, is
only symbolic and is not and should not be regarded as the actual Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ.

This is an easy argument to refute. In I Corinthians 11:23-29 Paul tells us that we must
examine ourselves carefully before going to receive communion (this is an instruction to not
receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin). Saint Paul tells us that those who receive the
Eucharist unworthily are guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Why does
Paul use such language as this if it is only a symbol? How can one be guilty of profaning the
Body and Blood of Jesus if the bread and wine are just that; bread and wine? Paul's words
only make sense when they are considered in the light of the Eucharist really being the flesh
and blood of Jesus Christ, as hard as that is to believe!

The Institution of the Eucharist

In three of the Gospels, we are shown the Last Supper narrative where the Eucharist is
instituted (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20). It is from here that the name
Eucharist comes it means thanksgiving and refers to the fact that Jesus gave thanks
for the bread and wine. In all three of the accounts, Jesus uses the words this is my body -
not this is a symbol of my body! Would Jesus have used such language if He did not intend
it to the taken literally, especially when considered in light of all the other passages of
Scripture which point towards a literal interpretation?

Support for the Eucharist in the Writings of the Church Fathers

Unsurprisingly, the Catholic view of the Eucharist is found in the writings of the earliest
Christians, and the documents of the Church Fathers can be effectively used to bolster
arguments in defense of the Catholic position.

When using these documents, it is important to note that they do not use the word
transubstantiation as that word was not applied to the change that occurs during the
consecration of the bread and wine until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, and the doctrine
was not formally defined under that name until the Council of Trent in 1551. The Real
Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was believed before these dates, however, but it was
not fully understood or formally defined this is an example of doctrinal
development and doctrinal proclamation.

However, these documents do speak very clearly of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the
Eucharist. The language used is not always explicit in supporting the Catholic view of the
real physical presence, but is always at least suggestive of it and is never explicit in
advancing a view contrary to the current teaching of the Church. Many Protestants will
attempt to read an ambiguous passage of the writings of the Church Fathers on the Eucharist
and attempt to say that a particular Church Father believed in a different form of the Real
Presence of Jesus Christ than Catholic transubstantiation, which they call a Medieval
invention.

This should be dealt with in the following manner; firstly, no passage of the writings of
the Church Fathers is explicit in suggesting either consubstantiation or spiritual presence.
The absence of historical evidence for conflicting views is powerful anecdotal evidence that
the Fathers did not hold any view which is contrary to transubstantiation. In many cases, the
passage in question does not teach anything which is even ambiguous the non-Catholic is
simply reading his or her own preconceived theological notions into what the Father wrote!
Often, an ambiguous passage of the Church Father's writings can be cleared up by referring
to his other writings.

No individual Church Father expresses the mind of the Church they can be (and sometimes
are) wrong on various matters. The views of the Church Fathers should always be compared
against Scripture and the teaching of the Church, and of course other Church Fathers.

Finally, the Church Fathers taken as a whole are not the only or even primary source for
our belief and understanding of the Eucharist. Scriptural references and the various answers
to objections to the Eucharist are required to fully explain and defend the Real Presence of
Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

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 - 110 AD)
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 - 110 AD)

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 [i.e., has received baptism] 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 -151 AD)

Irenaeus

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 - 189 AD)

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? (Against
Heresies 5:2 - 189 AD)

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 - 191 AD)

Tertullian

[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 - 210 AD)
Hippolytus

And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table [Proverbs 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christs]
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 [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs - 217 AD)

Origen

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 - 248 AD)

Cyprian of Carthage

He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying,
Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord [I Corinthians 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned -
[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated,
before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by
sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord
has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against
their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The
Lapsed 1516 - 251 AD)

Council of Nicaea I

It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities,
the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e. priests], whereas neither canon nor
custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the
Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 - 325 AD)

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had
made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with
his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank
of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord
presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink
(Treatises 12:6 - 340 AD)

Cyril of Jerusalem

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the
adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread
becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 -
350 AD)
Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the
Masters declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the
other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the
faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . .
[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible
to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the
taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face
on your soul (Catechetical Lectures 22:6, 9 - 350 AD)

Ambrose of Milan

Perhaps you may be saying, I see something else; how can you assure me that I am
receiving the body of Christ? It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the
examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The
Mysteries 9:50, 58 - 390 AD).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, This is the symbol of my body, but, This is
my body. In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, This is the
symbol of my blood, but, This is my blood; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic
elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to
their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not
regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into
which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 -
405 AD)

Augustine

Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, This is my
body [Matthew 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the
Psalms 33:1:10 - 405 AD)

I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would
explain the sacrament of the Lords Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having
been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in
that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227
- 411 AD).

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But
what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is
the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith;
yet faith does not desire instruction" (Sermons 272 - 411 AD).

Council of Ephesus

We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-
begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his
ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the
mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious
blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid:
nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as
having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself.
For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he
made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius - 43 AD).

The Weight of Historical Evidence

When a Catholic engages in apologetics he is defending not just the views and doctrines
currently held by a single Christian denomination (as a Protestant apologist is doing) but is in
fact defending the very first teachings of the Christian Church which were universally held by
all Christians for 1500 years and have been held by the vast majority of Christians since then.

This historical precedent means two things; firstly, it is very important to defend the
teachings! But, secondly, it is actually easier in certain respects to do so the weight of
historical evidence can be a very effective and powerful argument for the truth of the Catholic
faith.

A Word of Warning

While it may seem very easy to use the weight of historical belief and the one billion
Catholics can't be wrong! tack, these arguments are not actually logically consistent or
anything more than an appeal to emotion.

It is certainly the case that while Catholicism is the largest denomination of Christianity
(and always has been) and it is the largest single religious sect in the world there are far
more non-Catholics than Catholics, and far more non-Christians than Christians. As Pope
Benedict said, Truth is not determined by a majority vote. When the Catholic Church was
first founded in 33AD by Jesus Christ, the number of people who were members of the
Church was very small. If an apologist were to suggest that the fact there are more Catholics
than anything else makes Catholicism true, then the argument could be used to say that
Catholicism was not true when there were only a handful of Catholics.

The number of Catholics is not the cause of the truth, but rather the effect there are more
Catholics because Catholicism is true, not the other way around. The number of Catholics
is anecdotal evidence it does not formally prove anything, but when presented along with
other evidence strengthens the case. It is very hard, for example, to argue that the Catholic
Church is a false religion when her history of being persecuted is compared to her success
even though there is no firm, irrefutable evidence.

The purpose of apologetics is not always to provide solid arguments which will
convince everyone, but rather to convince the individual to come to the Church and accept the
truth. Anecdotal evidence may not be admissible in a formal debate, but it is very persuasive!

The weight of historical belief should also be handled with care it is a fact that for the
majority of history, the Catholic Church was completely unknown; simply because Jesus
hadn't founded it yet! Some non-Catholics may claim that the true revelation of God only
came about much later (a good example would be the Mormons, and some Protestants
making the same claim about the Reformation). Just as the truth is not determined by
majority vote of people it is not necessarily determined by the majority vote of years. For
example, for the vast span of human democratic history women were not allowed to vote
does that mean that women should not be allowed to vote?

However, the anecdotal evidence of the weight of historic belief for Church teaching is
powerful and can be used effectively to add to the strength of other arguments. One very
good way of using the weight of historical or demographic belief is the lack of opposing
views argument.

Lack of opposing views

Most of the views held by non-Catholic Christians are exclusively modern. Those which are
not are generally speaking the revival of ancient heresies which were held by a minority of
Christians and which were condemned by the rest of the Church.

When the historical record is examined there are very few examples of Christians teaching
Protestant theology before the year 1500 or thereabouts. Many concepts such as
the Rapture are even more modern (the Rapture first appears around 1850!) Any examples
of Protestant teaching before 1500 are accompanied by swift condemnation from other
members of the Church (most especially the Church Fathers).

What does this mean for the Catholic apologist? How can this be used to strengthen the
argument for the Catholic faith?

It is reasonable to assume that Christians would write down their beliefs in one form or
another, even if they did not write down everything. The New Testament writers certainly did
so, so did the Church Fathers, and modern Christians do this even today. In fact, there is a
tradition of writing by Christians about Christianity (of all denominations) which extends
back nearly 2000 years. It is a fair bet to say that pretty much every doctrine which has even
been believed will have been recorded in a book, letter, sermon or even webpage somewhere.

Therefore, if a particular doctrine or belief has no historical evidence before a certain date, it
is unlikely that the doctrine was held and believed centuries before that date. As a classic
example, we only findhistorical evidence for a belief in the Rapture as it is believed today
around the year 1850 it is extremely unlikely that it was believed long before this date
someone would have probably written or recorded it.

As a Catholic apologist, asking a Protestant to produce evidence (in the form of a letter, or
writing, or prayer, or book) that a particular Protestant belief was held can often be a very
effective method of weakening his argument that a particular doctrine was held by the early
Church.

Another Word of Warning

There is a phrase used in debating which is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This means that just because the record does not say a thing happened, there is no proof the
thing did not happen. A good example would be that the Bible does not explicitly say
that Mary was assumed into Heaven but that does not mean she was not. The Bible is silent
on the matter, and so we must look elsewhere for information about this Catholic teaching.
In the same way, the fact that there is no historical evidence for a non-Catholic teaching does
not (by itself) mean that the teaching is not true. As an apologist, you will have to use other
evidence to actually prove your point.

This highlights another important fact about using the lack of evidence in your argument it
does not actually prove the Catholic position, but only weakens (via anecdotal evidence) the
non-Catholic position. For a Catholic apologist to succeed in persuading a non-Catholic of
the correctness of the Catholic position, actual evidence which supports the Catholic position
must be found. Fortunately, such evidence can be found from the very source where the non-
evidence is not-found the historical record, and most often the writings of the Church
Fathers.

A final word of warning concerns the writings of some of the Church Fathers. On occasion,
these early Christians appear to have held (and in some cases did hold) views that were
heterodox or, in some isolated cases, heretical. For example, Origen advocates a sort
of universalism. In these cases, it will be necessary to show that the majority of the
early Church Fathers supported orthodox Catholic views and that the contemporaries of the
dissident writers condemned their errors.

Taken by itself, the weight of historical evidence and the lack of historical support for non-
Catholic positions is not conclusive, but it is anecdotal and does strengthen a case already
made. Many people are very impressed by anecdotal evidence, and so the Catholic apologist
should always be ready to show that the majority of people agree with him and that very few
agree with his opponent.

Eucharistic Miracles

Many non-Catholics are confused by the Church's teaching concerning the Eucharist, saying
that if the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why don't
they look and taste like human flesh and human blood? The answer is relatively obvious in
His mercy, God has allowed us to share in His once and for all sacrifice in a manner which is
not repulsive to human sensibility (that is, under the appearance of bread and wine).

However, there are many examples of so-called Eucharistic miracles. Obviously, the
transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is a miracle, but
the term Eucharistic miracle is normally used to refer to something which is out of the
ordinary (as if the changing of bread and wine into God could ever be called ordinary!)
Examples are hosts levitating, the elements changingappearance as well as substance, the
hosts turning into blood which can then be swallowed by those unable to swallow solid food
(as happened with the last Eucharist received by Father John Hardon), people living for years
on nothing but the Eucharist and so forth.

There are many of these miracles and they are all evidence of the fact that the bread and wine
are far more than just bread and wine! Would there be so many Eucharistic miracles if the
Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence was false and a lie? Would God reinforce the Catholic
Church's teaching with miracles if the teaching was false?
There are far too many Eucharistic miracles to comprehensively list them all here, or even
give a representative sample of them. The book Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Carroll Cruz is
recommended (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1987).

In addition, there is a great deal of information on various Eucharistic miracles available on

the internet from a wide variety of webpages.

Eucharistic miracles at the Father John Hardon archives

A list of other other Eucharistic miracles

Another list of Eucharistic miracles

Answers to Eucharistic Objections

The Eucharist is such a central doctrine to Christianity that it is unsurprising that a significant
amount of anti-Catholic confusion centers around it. Although other articles have dealt
with scriptural, historicaland miraculous evidence and arguments for the Eucharist, this
article focuses on a number of the most common objections to the Catholic teaching on the
Eucharist, and how to address them.

(A number of other objections are covered in the other articles and for brevity's sake are
not repeated here.)

What is so special about Christ being really present? If Christ is God, then He is present
everywhere!

This confusion arises because of the weakness of our human language. There are, in
fact, three ways in which Jesus is present.

1. He is present everywhere as God because of His knowledge, power and divinity. This
is referred to as God's natural presence.

2. He is present spiritually in those who are in a state of grace.

3. He is present physically in the form of flesh and blood, soul and divinity in the
Eucharist and in His glorified body in Heaven.

Thus, when Catholics speak of the real presence they are not denying the fact Jesus is
omnipresent, but are instead referring to the very clear teaching that Jesus is really present as
flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

Okay, I see that Jesus says that this is His flesh but He also says He is a door (John 10:9)
and a vine (John 15:1)! What about that? Is Jesus a door too?

When those passages are read as we should read Sacred Scripture, the context makes it clear
that Jesus is speaking figuratively John 10:6 expressly calls the door illustration a figure of
speech. These figures of speech are very clear Jesus is like a door because men come to
the Father though Him. He is like a vine in that He is the source of spiritual fruit for and
gives life to all Christians. But there is no obvious comparison between His body and bread
and His blood and wine (remember, as discussed elsewhere, that to eat flesh and drink
blood never means to commune with, but rather means to violently assault.

Also, when considering Jesus' statement we must not simply take a single statement in
isolation Jesus claims that the bread is His body in three Gospels and the whole of the John
6 discourse shows that this was what He intended.

In addition, a grammatical difference exists between I am the vine (which is impossible, as

men cannot be plants) and this is my body. Jesus does not say the bread is my body,
which would be impossible bread cannot be someone's body (this is
why consubstantiation is a false doctrine), but rather this is my body while holding up
what appears to be bread. Jesus is stating, very simply and directly, that whatever He is
holding up is His body. When taken literally, there is no contradiction in these statements
which has to be smoothed over by a metaphorical interpretation (as is contained in the
statements about the vine and the door).

(As a side note, the statement I am the door can also be interpreted to mean I am the
shepherd - in ancient Israel sheepfolds were fenced in areas of land with a gap in the fence
which formed the gate. This gap was about five or six feet wide, and the shepherd would
sleep across this gap during the night when the sheep were safe inside the fold. The shepherd
acted, in a very real sense, as the door. Jesus' words can be interpreted as meaning that He is
acting as the good shepherd who looks after His sheep a metaphor which He uses
elsewhere).

How can Jesus Christ be present in two places at once? He is in the room with His
disciples at the Last Supper and, according to you Catholics, holding Himself in His
hands? How can this be?

This is an objection which strikes at the heart of what we know about God - with God all
things are possible (Luke 1:37), even those things which seem unusual or impossible. At the
Last Supper, Jesus is present in a natural way but he is also present in a sacramental way. His
presence in the Eucharist under the form of bread and wine is not impossible because He is
God. In just the same way as Jesus Christ's presence in thousands upon thousands of Catholic
tabernacles throughout the world is not impossible.

Many things which seem impossible God becoming Man, one God in three Persons, and so
forth are possible with God and are believed by Christians. Why should it be any different
for the Real Presence of Christ, especially when Jesus speaks about it so often and so plainly
in Scripture?

Jesus calls the contents of the cup the fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:29) and Saint Paul
calls what you Catholics call the body bread (I Corinthians 11:26-28).

Scripture often refers to things not as what they are, but as how they appear. This is
called phenomenological language. Angels who appear to be men are called men
in Genesis 18:2, 18:22, 19:1. The Holy Spirit is described as tongues of fire in Acts
2:3 when He appears in this form. Does this mean that angels are men, or that the Holy
Spirit is fire?
Scripture also calls things which have been changed by their former names Aaron's rod
which has become a snake and swallows up the rods of the Egyptian sorcerers which have
also become snakes is still called a rod in Exodus 7:12, as are the rods of the magicians.
The man cured by Jesus of his blindness is still called the blind man - even though he can
now see! (John 9:17)

These examples show that Scripture sometimes refers to things as how they appear and
also by their former names. The Eucharist is called bread and wine because it looks like bread
and wine and because itused to be bread and wine. Neither of these points have ever been
denied by Catholics.

Jesus says it is finished and His sacrifice was once and for all - what's all this with
multiple sacrifices?

There are really two objections here the first is that Catholics sacrifice Jesus again and
again at each Mass. The second objection is that no further sacrifice is needed because Jesus
made sacrifice once and for all so there is no need for the Mass, and also no need for
the Priesthood.

Answering this objection is very simple the Catholic Mass is not sacrificing Jesus again. It
is connecting us to the once and for all sacrifice. We no longer need to
offer further sacrifices as the perfect offering has been made once and for all. However, we
do need to be connected to and participate in that sacrifice. This is what Jesus meant when He
said do this in memory of me - a better translation of the Jewish idea of doing something
in memory would be to take part in. The sacrifice is not recreated and there is not another
sacrifice there is one sacrifice which we present again and are joined to via the Mass.

Because this sacrifice is once and for all, further sacrifices are not needed and would in fact
offend God and have no effect. However, we still need to be connected to the sacrifice via the
Mass we cannot just say The sacrifice happened but we did not participate in it. The Old
Testament notion of sacrifice (which is a type of the Mass and Jesus' sacrifice) was that the
offering would be made and the people would consume the flesh of the sacrificial victim. The
offering of Jesus Christ has been made and we consume the flesh of Jesus Christ at the Mass.
It is not a new sacrifice, and by participating we do not say the work of Jesus was incomplete
or of no avail. Quite the opposite, in fact if we did not participate in this manner we would
be suggesting that we cannot benefit from the sacrifice of Jesus as we would not be
responding to it as one should respond to a sacrifice.

The word transubstantiation does not appear until the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 and
is not used formally as a doctrine until 1551 at the Council of Trent you Catholics just
made it up!

No, we didn't. Although the word did not exist (or was not used in Church documents) before
1217 and was not formally defined as a doctrine until 1551, this does not mean that
the idea was not believed before then.

The evidence of the Church Fathers shows that the Church believed in transubstantiation
(although not called by that name) long before 1215 (from the days of the Apostles, in fact).
The use of the word at the Fourth Lateran Council is an example of doctrinal development; it
was not known precisely how the bread and wine became the body and blood, although it was
known that they did.

The defining of the doctrine at the Council of Trent in 1551 is an example of doctrinal
proclamation, not doctrinal invention. The doctrine was challenged by the novel doctrines of
Martin Luther and others (which are an example of doctrinal invention!) and so it was
formally defined.

Understanding these two points (doctrinal development and doctrinal proclamation) is key to
refuting this objection.

An Objection to the Objections

After answering any and all objections which non-Catholics may have, it is probably time for
the Catholic apologist to offer an objection of his own! If Jesus (who is God, and hence
omniscient and knows all that will come to be) did not mean to be taken literally, why did He
use language which could cause confusion? Why did He not explicitly state This is a
symbol? Why did He say This is my body? If the doctrine of the Real Presence is false
then Jesus must have known it would be embraced by the whole Church for 1500 years
why did He allow this to happen? Did He not care about His Church?

The only reasonable answer is that Jesus did care about His Church He cared about her
enough to die for her, and to give her the most precious gift in the universe; His own body
and blood.

The weight of historical evidence shows that the belief in the Real Presence was widespread
from the days of the Church Fathers and was never seriously challenged. Such an important
doctrine would have been challenged if it was false, as if it were untrue it would lead to
one of the most serious sins, idolatry. It is this which is the most serious and significant
objection to the objections; all of the objections do not address the core of the doctrine
which is believed because of the massive weight of Scriptural and other evidence.

Specific examples of typology Sacrifice and Passover (CCC 1356-1361) Church Fathers

Many Protestants consider that the Eucharistic celebration (the Mass) is inappropriate
because it is a sacrifice. Many of these objections come from a misunderstanding of the
Eucharist as a re-presentation of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross at Calvary.
It is thought that the Mass is another sacrifice and that Jesus is sacrificed again. This is not
the case, and the Catholic apologist should take care toensure that the non-Catholic
understands this aspect of Catholic teaching.

Throughout the Old Testament there are examples of sacrifices and covenants; the two
concepts go hand in glove. All of these examples of sacrifice are types for the once and for all
sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. There are various elements of sacrifice which it is important
to understand.
Something has to die for sin

In every single case, in order to forgive sin something has to die. Beginning with Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden we see that sacrifice has to be made for sin (Genesis 3:21). We
read in Luke 2:24 the sin offering made for Christ as proscribed by Leviticus 12:2-8.

In Romans 6:23 we are told that the wages of sin is death, and it is for this reason that God
mandates that something must die for sin. In His mercy, He said that an animal sacrifice
would be enough to cover our sins until such time as He began the new covenant when He
would send the once and for all perfect sacrifice His Son to pay the price for all sin.

The creature sacrificed is eaten

In covenants where they are sealed with a sacrifice those participating in the covenant are
told to consume the flesh of the sacrificed animal in order to share in the covenant and be
bound by it. This typologyis used by God to prefigure the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus
on the Cross.

The Passover

The specific typology of the Passover is significant when used with reference to the sacrifice
of Jesus Christ. The original Passover was held in order to avoid death (the blood of the lamb
was splashed on the gateposts to tell the Destroyer to not visit that house), in just the same
way as the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross avoids our spiritual death and pay the price for our
sins. However, while the blood of the Passover lamb merely hides or covers sin, Jesus' blood
washes away our sins completely as if they never were there.

The typology of the Passover is a rich source of understanding for Jesus' sacrifice. Not only
does the crucifixion take place during the Passover season, but Jesus is killed at precisely the
same time as the pascal lambs were being slaughtered for the sacrifice. The Jewish Passover
was a type of Christ's sacrifice and we cannot fully understand the Eucharistic feast without
it. Both of these sacrifices are a sacrifice for sin and one in which we need to participate by
eating the flesh of the Lamb in order to benefit from the covenant.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it very clear that the Catholic Church's teaching
on the Eucharist as being a re-presentation of the once and for all sacrifice is entirely in
keeping with the Jewish understanding of a memorial (c/f Luke 22:19). In paragraph 1364 of
the CCC we read that every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present
to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

I Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ!

One of the most common (and, indeed, tiresome) statements made by a number of our
Evangelical brethren is that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or that He is
their personal lord and savior! This statement is often coupled with the notion that salvation
was a single event which took place in time which itself is often connected with the notion
of sola fides and eternal assurance.

There are two claims made in conjunction with this claim of a personal relationship that
Catholics do not have a personal relationship and that a personal relationship is all that is
required for salvation. Both of these notions are incorrect, and should be dealt with by a
Catholic apologist.

Do Catholics have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

There are two ways to look at this question do Catholics have a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ as defined by the person asking? And, do Catholics have a genuine personal
relationship with Jesus Christ?

In order to answer the first, it will be necessary to find out exactly what the criteria for a
personal relationship (according to the definition of the non-Catholic) actually are. The
apologist should ask what the non-Catholic means by this, but normally the answer will
be that the human being must accept Jesus Christ as his personal lord and savior, admit that
he is a sinner and that he needs Jesus' sacrifice to wash away his sins. Sometimes, the
personal relationship will include regular prayer and reading of the Scripture.

In this case, it can clearly be shown that all Catholics have a personal relationship with
Jesus! The non-Catholic may say that a particular, explicit declaration of acceptance of Jesus
Christ as your personal lord and savior is needed (especially if the non-Catholic believes that
Catholics are not Christians) and so a very good tactic is to make that profession right then
and there!

(It may be that the non-Catholic if he or she is very anti-Catholic - will say that the prayer
of profession must include a rejection of the false Gospel of Catholicism. Obviously, such a
thing is not only unacceptable for a Catholic to do, but is also just downright rude and
assumes that Catholicism is wrong which is the thing actually under discussion!)

However, it is not enough for a Catholic apologist to show that he or she has a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ as far as a non-Catholic defines the term, but rather to show
a genuine personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The apologist should use the Eucharist as a starting point, showing that Catholics not only
have a relationship with Jesus Christ in prayer, but also have a relationship with His actual
physical, real presence. Catholics commune with Jesus Christ in the way that He commanded
us (John 6:53 and other Scriptural references). We read that Jesus Christ says If you love
me, you will keep my commandments - Catholics not only have the relationship which
Protestants have, but also the genuine, sacramental relationship which connects us to the once
and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. By pointing this out (and defending the Catholic teaching
of the Eucharist) the non-Catholic can be shown that the only true sort of personal
relationship with Jesus Christ is found in the Catholic Church.

Is a personal relationship all that required for salvation?

Is a personal relationship required for salvation? Absolutely the Catholic Church has never
said it is not. However, there are a number of additional elements which are required for a full
and complete relationship with Jesus Christ.

Firstly, is the personal relationship the non-Catholic has with Jesus a genuine relationship,
and is it actually with the real Jesus Christ?
Jesus says that if we love Him we will keep His commandments does the non-Catholic keep
all the clear commandments of Jesus Christ that we read in the Scriptures? This includes
reception of theEucharist the most important command of all. Can a relationship be called
real and genuine if it doesn't take into account what the person wants from the relationship?
What Jesus wants from us is for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood so that we can
participate in His once and for all sacrifice made on the cross. If the non-Catholic is not doing
this (and bear in mind that it is only in the true Church that the Real Presence is found) then
does he or she have a real relationship with Jesus Christ?

Also, if the non-Catholic does not believe in the Real Presence, is he or she believing in
the real Jesus Christ? The non-Catholic version of Jesus is not present in the form of bread
and wine how can this be the same as the real Jesus who says This is my body? An
understanding of just how important the Eucharist is between Catholics and Protestants is
essential here. The non-Catholic must be calling the Catholic an idolater, and the
Catholic must be saying that the non-Catholic isn't worshiping the real Jesus even if those
exact words are not used!

(There are even a number of Protestants who, in fact, deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, His
pre-existence for all eternity, or the fact He is not a created being.)

But perhaps the most important point that a Catholic should raise with a non-Catholic
concerning the personal relationship comment is that a merely personal relationship is
not enough. Heaven is often described (in the book of Revelation especially) as the wedding
feast of Jesus Christ and the Church. This is not going to be a simple tete-a-tete, sit-down
meal with Jesus and His worshiper! This will be a huge, corporate feast with the saints and
angels in attendance. Having a relationship which is merely personal is not enough in
addition to having the correct relation with Jesus Christ through understandingwho He is and
by participating in the Eucharist, Christians are called to have a corporate relationship which
takes into account the communion of saints and the Church established by Jesus Christ as the
means for salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

At the Last Supper Jesus anticipated the free offering of his life

610 Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with
the twelve Apostles "on the night he was betrayed".429 On the eve of his Passion, while still
free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary
offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you."
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of
sins."430

611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his
sacrifice.431 Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it. 432 By
doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: "For their sakes I
sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth."433

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the
dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by
Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of
the Eucharist.

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic
sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross
throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the
Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond
of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and
a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135

I. THE EUCHARIST - SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." 136 "The other sacraments,
and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the
Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole
spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the
divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the
culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer
to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly
liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is
attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1328 The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give
it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:

Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek

words eucharistein141 and eulogein142 recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially
during a meal - God's works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.

1329 The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with
his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the
Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.143

The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of
the table he blessed and distributed the bread, 144 above all at the Last Supper.145 It is by this
action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection, 146 and it is this expression
that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; 147 by doing so they
signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and
form but one body in him.148

The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of
the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and
includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise,"
spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses
all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most
intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its
celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the
Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated
by this same name.

1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes
us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body.151 We also call it: the holy things (ta
hagia; sancta)152 - the first meaning of the phrase "communion of saints" in the Apostles'
Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality,153 viaticum. . . .

1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is
accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may
fulfill God's will in their daily lives.

III. THE EUCHARIST IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

The signs of bread and wine

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of
Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the
Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return,
what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine.
. . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and
Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory
we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, 154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but
above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the
gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of
her own offering.155

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of
the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new
significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at
Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the
remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread
of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God's
faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing" 157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal
adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the
rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive
meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing,
breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the
superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist. 158 The sign of water turned into wine at
Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus' glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of
the wedding feast in the Father's kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has
become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement
of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 160 The
Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be
an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?": 161 the Lord's question echoes through the
ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life" 162 and that
to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

The institution of the Eucharist

1337 The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them to the end. Knowing that
the hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father, in the course of a meal he
washed their feet and gave them the commandment of love. 163 In order to leave them a pledge
of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover,
he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his
apostles to celebrate it until his return; "thereby he constituted them priests of the New
Testament."164

1338 The three synoptic Gospels and St. Paul have handed on to us the account of the
institution of the Eucharist; St. John, for his part, reports the words of Jesus in the synagogue
of Capernaum that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist: Christ calls himself the bread
of life, come down from heaven.165

1339 Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving
his disciples his Body and his Blood:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So
Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat
it. . . ." They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table,
and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover
with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom
of God.". . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to
them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And
likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New
Covenant in my blood."166

1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal,
Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to his father by his
death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the
Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church
in the glory of the kingdom.

"Do this in memory of me"

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only
ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the
apostles and their successors, of thememorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his
Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church
of Jerusalem it is written:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread
and the prayers. . . . Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their
homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.168

1343 It was above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection,
that the Christians met "to break bread."169 From that time on down to our own day the
celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in
the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church's life.

1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus
"until he comes," the pilgrim People of God advances, "following the narrow way of the
cross,"170 toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the
kingdom.

IV. THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST

The Mass of all ages

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic
lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day
for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius
(138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same
place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time
permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and
challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they
may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the
commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides
over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in
Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an
acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call
deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those
who are absent.171

1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has
been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that
form a fundamental unity:

- the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
- the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory
thanksgiving, and communion.

The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of
worship";172 the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the
Body of the Lord.173

1347 Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples?
Walking with them he explained the Scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "he took
bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them."174

The movement of the celebration

1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly.
At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New
Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in
representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona
Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings,
and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration,
each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion,
and the whole people whose "Amen" manifests their participation.

1349 The Liturgy of the Word includes "the writings of the prophets," that is, the Old
Testament, and "the memoirs of the apostles" (their letters and the Gospels). After the homily,
which is an exhortation to accept this Word as what it truly is, the Word of God, 175 and to put
it into practice, come the intercessions for all men, according to the Apostle's words: "I urge
that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings,
and all who are in high positions."176

1350 The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the
bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of
Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. It is the very
action of Christ at the Last Supper - "taking the bread and a cup." "The Church alone offers
this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with
thanksgiving."177 The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of
Melchizedek and commits the Creator's gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice,
brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.

1351 From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the
Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need. This custom of the collection, ever appropriate, is
inspired by the example of Christ who became poor to make us rich:178

Those who are well off, and who are also willing, give as each chooses. What is gathered is
given to him who presides to assist orphans and widows, those whom illness or any other
cause has deprived of resources, prisoners, immigrants and, in a word, all who are in need.179

1352 The anaphora: with the Eucharistic Prayer - the prayer of thanksgiving and
consecration - we come to the heart and summit of the celebration:

In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all
his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. The whole community thus joins in the
unending praise that the Church in heaven, the angels and all the saints, sing to the thrice-
holy God.

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his
blessing180) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood
of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one
spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of
the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's
body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

1354 In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and
glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which
reconciles us with him.

In the intercessions, the Church indicates that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with
the whole Church in heaven and on earth, the living and the dead, and in communion with the
pastors of the Church, the Pope, the diocesan bishop, his presbyterium and his deacons, and
all the bishops of the whole world together with their Churches.

1355 In the communion, preceded by the Lord's prayer and the breaking of the bread, the
faithful receive "the bread of heaven" and "the cup of salvation," the body and blood of Christ
who offered himself "for the life of the world":181

Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist ("eucharisted," according to an
ancient expression), "we call this food Eucharist, and no one may take part in it unless he
believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new
birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught."182
V. THE SACRAMENTAL SACRIFICE THANKSGIVING, MEMORIAL, PRESENCE

1356 If from the beginning Christians have celebrated the Eucharist and in a form whose
substance has not changed despite the great diversity of times and liturgies, it is because we
know ourselves to be bound by the command the Lord gave on the eve of his Passion: "Do
this in remembrance of me."183

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In
so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread
and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the
body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:

- thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

Thanksgiving and praise to the Father

1359 The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is
also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice
the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the
Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in
thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity.

1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the
Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished
through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all "thanksgiving."

1361 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God
in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites
the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to
the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him.

The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the
sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In
all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called
the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past
events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. 184 In the liturgical
celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel
understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events
are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church
celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the
sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. 185 "As often as the
sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the
altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The
sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is
my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New
Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up
for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of
sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of
the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his
death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his
priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was
betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the
nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for
all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and
its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The
victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then
offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this
divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in
a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody
manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of
Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and
entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the
sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the
faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his
total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it
possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in
the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his arms on the cross, through him, with
him, and in him, she offers herself and intercedes for all men.

1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has
the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the
Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church.
The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides;
the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the
midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also
for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency
of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.191
Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union
with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the
priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until
the Lord himself comes.192

1370 To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also
those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed
Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the
Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and
intercession of Christ.

1371 The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who "have died in
Christ but are not yet wholly purified,"193 so that they may be able to enter into the light and
peace of Christ:

Put this body anywhere! Don't trouble yourselves about it! I simply ask you to remember me
at the Lord's altar wherever you are.194

Then, we pray [in the anaphora] for the holy fathers and bishops who have fallen asleep, and
in general for all who have fallen asleep before us, in the belief that it is a great benefit to the
souls on whose behalf the supplication is offered, while the holy and tremendous Victim is
present. . . . By offering to God our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, if they
have sinned, we . . . offer Christ sacrificed for the sins of all, and so render favorable, for
them and for us, the God who loves man.195

1372 St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more
complete participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist:

This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a
universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself
for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head. . . . Such is the sacrifice of
Christians: "we who are many are one Body in Christ" The Church continues to reproduce
this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to
them that in what she offers she herself is offered.196

The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of
God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church: 197 in his word, in
his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name," 199 in the poor, the sick,
and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the
Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the
Eucharistic species."200

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the
Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which
all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and
blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole
Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by
which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too,
but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by
which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ
becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the
Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring
about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he
who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these
words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms
the things offered.204

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated.
The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is
changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist,
change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their
original nature than to change their nature.205

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our
Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has
always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again,
that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole
substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole
substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church
has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and
endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each
of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of
the bread does not divide Christ.207

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real
presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or
bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered
and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass,
but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to
the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."208

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place
so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real
presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of
silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the
tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be
constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of
Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this
unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he
wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross
to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the
end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in
our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, 210 and he remains under signs
that express and communicate this love:

The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this
sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation
full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let
our adoration never cease.211

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that
'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on
divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is
given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words
of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore

Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;

How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.213

VI. THE PASCHAL BANQUET

1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the
sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's
body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the
intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to
receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.

1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist,
represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the
Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present
in the midst of the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation
and as food from heaven who is giving himself to us. "For what is the altar of Christ if not the
image of the Body of Christ?" 214 asks St. Ambrose. He says elsewhere, "The altar represents
the body [of Christ] and the Body of Christ is on the altar." 215 The liturgy expresses this unity
of sacrifice and communion in many prayers. Thus the Roman Church prays in its anaphora:

We entreat you, almighty God,

that by the hands of your holy Angel
this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that as we receive in communion at this altar
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.216

"Take this and eat it, all of you": communion

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the
Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood,
you have no life in you."217

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a
moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or
drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and
blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon
himself."218 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation
before coming to communion.

1386 Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with ardent faith the
words of the Centurion: "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic
verbo, et sanabitur anima mea" ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word and my soul will be healed."). 219 And in the Divine Liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom the faithful pray in the same spirit:

O Son of God, bring me into communion today with your mystical supper. I shall not tell
your enemies the secret, nor kiss you with Judas' kiss. But like the good thief I cry, "Jesus,
remember me when you come into your kingdom."

1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast
required in their Church.220 Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect,
solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest.

1388 It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the
required dispositions,221 receive communion when they participate in the Mass.222 As the
Second Vatican Council says: "That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby
the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's Body from the same sacrifice, is
warmly recommended."223

1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast
days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a
year, if possible during the Easter season. 224 But the Church strongly encourages the faithful
to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the
species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For
pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the
most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when
given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more
clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
The fruits of Holy Communion

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the
Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said:
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." 226 Life in Christ has
its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of
the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."227

On the feasts of the Lord, when the faithful receive the Body of the Son, they proclaim to one
another the Good News that the first fruits of life have been given, as when the angel said to
Mary Magdalene, "Christ is risen!" Now too are life and resurrection conferred on whoever
receives Christ.228

1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves
in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and
giving life through the Holy Spirit," 229 preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace
received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic
Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to
us as viaticum.

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy
Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the
forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the
same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we
proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is
poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may
always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.230

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity,
which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.231 By
giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered
attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:

Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the
moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit.
We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by
receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and
to be ourselves as crucified to the world. . . . Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin
and live for God.232

1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future
mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more
difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. The Eucharist is not ordered to the
forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is
properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the
Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in
one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into
the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one
body.233 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the
body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake
of the one bread:"234

If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the
table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond
"Amen" ("yes, it is true!") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words,
"the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that
your Amen may be true.235

1397 The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ
given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:

You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother,. . . . You
dishonor this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged
worthy to take part in this meal. . . . God freed you from all your sins and invited you here,
but you have not become more merciful.236

1398 The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St.
Augustine exclaims, "O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!" 237 The
more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common
participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time
of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate
the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true
sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby
they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the
Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely
possible but is encouraged."238

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic
Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness,
especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." 239 It is for this reason
that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not
possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death
and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ
and await his coming in glory."240

1401 When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give
the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full
communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give
evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required
dispositions.241

VII. THE EUCHARIST - "PLEDGE OF THE GLORY TO COME"

1402 In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist: "O sacred
banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is
filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us." If the Eucharist is the
memorial of the Passover of the Lord Jesus, if by our communion at the altar we are filled
"with every heavenly blessing and grace," 242 then the Eucharist is also an anticipation of the
heavenly glory.

1403 At the Last Supper the Lord himself directed his disciples' attention toward the
fulfillment of the Passover in the kingdom of God: "I tell you I shall not drink again of this
fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's
kingdom."243 Whenever the Church celebrates the Eucharist she remembers this promise and
turns her gaze "to him who is to come." In her prayer she calls for his coming: "Marana
tha!" "Come, Lord Jesus!"244 "May your grace come and this world pass away!"245

1404 The Church knows that the Lord comes even now in his Eucharist and that he is there in
our midst. However, his presence is veiled. Therefore we celebrate the Eucharist "awaiting
the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ,"246 asking "to share in your glory
when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see you, our God, as you are. We
shall become like you and praise you for ever through Christ our Lord."247

1405 There is no surer pledge or dearer sign of this great hope in the new heavens and new
earth "in which righteousness dwells,"248 than the Eucharist. Every time this mystery is
celebrated, "the work of our redemption is carried on" and we "break the one bread that
provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live
for ever in Jesus Christ."249

IN BRIEF

1406 Jesus said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any one eats of this
bread, he will live for ever; . . . he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and
. . . abides in me, and I in him" (Jn 6:51, 54, 56).

1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates
his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for
all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his
Body which is the Church.

1408 The Eucharistic celebration always includes: the proclamation of the Word of God;
thanksgiving to God the Father for all his benefits, above all the gift of his Son; the
consecration of bread and wine; and participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the
Lord's body and blood. These elements constitute one single act of worship.

1409 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, that is, of the work of salvation
accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the
liturgical action.

1410 It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the
ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really
present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and
the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on
which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of
consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given
up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ
himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and
his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the
dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.

1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of
grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having
received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with
the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this
sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also
reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

1417 The Church warmly recommends that the faithful receive Holy Communion when they
participate in the celebration of the Eucharist; she obliges them to do so at least once a year.

1418 Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with
the worship of adoration. "To visit the Blessed Sacrament is . . . a proof of gratitude, an
expression of love, and a duty of adoration toward Christ our Lord" (Paul VI, MF 66).

1419 Having passed from this world to the Father, Christ gives us in the Eucharist the pledge
of glory with him. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice identifies us with his Heart, sustains our
strength along the pilgrimage of this life, makes us long for eternal life, and unites us even
now to the Church in heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.