Chapter 10: The Eucharist

Chapter 10: The Eucharist Our Lord Jesus is true God and true Man. Just before ascending into heaven, the Lord promised His disciples: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”164 He is able to keep such a promise because He is divine and therefore everywhere present. Christ is spiritually present with His people, but He is absent physically. Jesus told His disciples: “For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always.”165 The Lord Jesus is now in heaven. He promises the Church, “Surely I am coming quickly,” and His bride eagerly replies, “Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”166 But before departing He left His disciples a memorial feast. “The Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."”167

Just like in apostolic times, evangelical Christians today celebrate the Lord’s Supper with joy and thanksgiving (“Eucharist” comes from a Greek word which means thanksgiving). We share the bread to remember how Christ loved us and gave His body as a sacrifice for us. Similarly we drink of the fruit of the vine in commemoration of the blood shed on Calvary for our justification and our peace with God. We are exhorted to examine ourselves properly before partaking of the holy elements. “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”168 - in the same way that if a nation’s flag is burned it signifies contempt and disdain for the nation it symbolizes.

Transubstantiation

Throughout church history several interpretations of the Lord’s Supper have vied for acceptance. Some Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose, interpreted the words of Jesus, “This is My body... this is My blood” rather literally, but many others continued to propose a symbolical and spiritual significance. Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo were among those who expounded the words spiritually, though their language was never trivial or frivolous when they spoke of this holy ordinance. In the ninth century Paschasius Radbertus strove with might and main to see the literal interpretation prevail. He was opposed principally by Ratramnus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. It was only in the Lateran Council (1215) that the literal interpretation was declared as official dogma of the Catholic Church. Doctor Duns Scotus admits that this doctrine was not an article of faith before the thirteenth century. The Catholic Church teaches: “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."” “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.” 169 “Transubstantiation” means a change in substance. Hence the bread does not remain bread and the wine does not remain wine; they become the body and blood of Christ respectively, even though in appearance they still look and taste like bread and wine. I invite you to compare this Catholic dogma with the Bible’s teaching. The Bread and the Fruit of the Vine In ordinary speech, as well as in Scripture, the words “this is” could be used either in a plain literal sense or in a figurative sense (i.e. “this represents”). By looking at the context it is usually not difficult to determine the intended meaning.

I can introduce you to an elderly man and say, “This is my father.” But if I show you a photograph, and repeat the same words, “This is my father,” now you will not take my words literally. In this case “this is” means “this represents” my father because the photo is his likeness, not my father in person. Similarly, when Jesus uttered the words of institution, “This is My body,” He was physically present with His disciples. It was only natural for the disciples to take His words figuratively – the bread represents the body which they could still touch with their hands and see with their eyes. Christ gave the disciples a symbol because He was about to leave them.

Perhaps an illustration from Scripture will be fitting. It is told how three brave men once risked their lives and passed through the Philistines’ armies to bring David some water from a well. Seeing the water, the king responded: “Is this not the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?”170 He called the water in the vessel “blood,” not because it was transubstantiated, but simply because it represented the danger to the lives of those three men who brought it.

Furthermore, though Christ spoke about “My blood,” He made it unmistakably clear that the wine still remained wine. “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” 171 After speaking about the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the apostle Paul explains its import, and affirms that the bread remains bread: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”172 The bread remains bread; the wine remains wine. In Remembrance of Me

If transubstantiation is true, the consecrated host should be worshipped. But Jesus simply said: “Take, eat... drink from it, all of you.”173 Nowhere are we instructed to bow down on our knees and adore the host. In apostolic times, Christians used to meet and break bread together, not worship the bread. The Catholic Church goes beyond Scripture and encourages the worship of the sacrament. When her members adore the Eucharist, in reality they are worshipping bread. That is idolatry.

Besides all this, Catholic doctrine disregards the biblical truth about the humanity of Christ. Jesus arose from the grave with a real glorified body. The disciples trembled and feared when He met them after His resurrection for they thought that they saw a phantasm, but He reassured them: “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”174 The question naturally arises: How can Christ be a real human being, with a fleshly body, and yet be in thousands of places at the same time? Jesus’ human body must be either in heaven or on earth, and since we confess in the Apostles’ Creed that “He ascended into heaven, He is seated at the right hand of the Father, and He will come again to judge the living and the dead”, it is inconsistent to believe in His bodily presence on earth.

Finally, in insisting upon a real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Catholic tradition goes well beyond Christ’s intention. He simply said, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” In the Lord’s Supper, Christians remember Him because He is physically absent, and they continue to do so until He comes again. The memorial celebration implies our eager expectation that someday in the future we will be united with our Saviour.