The word “eucharist” comes from the Greek verb eucharistein meaning “to give thanks.” At Jesus’ Last Supper, he gave thanks, giving special significance to the bread and wine he passed to the men and women who were his disciples. Bread and wine had long been used in Hebrew religious practices. When Jesus said the bread and wine were his body and blood, he was speaking about giving his life for his followers.

Paul refers to the Christian practice of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. Acts of Apostles mentions three occasions, when the early followers of Jesus gathered to give thanks and break bread together: Acts 2, Acts 20 and Acts 27.

The early eucharistic services were presided over by the men and women who were leaders of the local Christian communities. Ordination was not yet a requirement for eucharistic leaders, because it did not even exist at that time.

Early Christians understood, much better than the medieval Christians who came centuries after them, that social realities can be powerful spiritual realities. The Body of Christ, as Paul stressed, was the Christian community. The Gospel According to Matthew is very clear: Jesus says: “Where two or three gather together in my name, there I am, with them.” (Matthew 18:20)

Interestingly, when the Gospel According to John describes the Last Supper, it mentions the washing of feet but not Jesus’ actions with bread and wine. But the sixth chapter of John’s gospel does quote Jesus as saying, “I am the bread of life. . . This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Nevertheless, John is very strong in his affirmation of the presence of Christ in the community. In chapter 17 we read Jesus saying: “Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity.” (John 17:20-26)

 By the late first and early second century, the weekly ceremonial meal of the Christian communities was called a “Thanksgiving” (eucharistia). The Palestinian Christian leader Justin (100 – c. 165 CE) argued that the Christian Eucharist had replaced Hebrew sacrifices. Justin took a text from Malachi, the last book of the Hebrew Bible, and applied it to Christians in his own days: “Everywhere a pure sacrifice is offered to my name because my name is great among the nations, says the Lord almighty.” (Malachi 1:11)

A “pure sacrifice” in the ancient world was a religious meal, shared by individuals who were ritually “pure.”

Centuries later, in the the eighth and ninth centuries, the ritual changed from a community celebration to a priestly action and worship arrangements in churches changed significantly. The presider became the “celebrant” and no longer faced the people but faced the apse: standing before the altar with his back to the congregation.

The new priestly practice was first adopted in the basilicas of Rome and then became common practice across Europe. What was lost was the sense that the congregation was the Body of Christ. What had been a community ritual became the celebrant’s ritual. The celebrant “said Mass.” The congregation watched everything from some distance. The word “Mass” was derived from the concluding words of the ritual in Latin: Ite, missa est, “Go, it is the dismissal.”

By the eleventh century, the ritual performed by priests was no longer understood as a sacred meal but as a priestly sacrifice: a sacrificial offering of God’s Son to God his Father. Medieval theologians misinterpreted Justin’s quotation from Malachi. Key among them was Anselm (1033 – 1109) the Archbishop of Canterbury with his “satisfaction theory of atonement.” Anselm created a theological distortion with his understanding of God not as a loving Father but as a hard-nosed and vengeful judge, demanding the death of his own son. Quite a departure from “God is love.”

Not long after Anselm, the influential Dominican philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) introduced another important change in eucharistic understanding. He noted significantly that the Eucharist was different from the other sacraments because it was not just a sacred ritual, but Eucharist was a sacred object. Popular piety shifted to adoration of that sacred object: the eucharistic bread, called the “host,” from the Latin word “hostis,” meaning victim.

The changed understanding became official when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 CE) decided that it was not necessary for Christians to receive communion regularly. The Blessed Sacrament (the name given to the consecrated bread), however, was to be adored. As a natural development of the changed focus to adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the feast of Corpus Christi (eucharistic Body of Christ), was established in 1264 by Pope Urban IV (1195 – 1264) shortly before his death. The worship of the consecrated host greatly expanded into the public adoration of the host exposed on the altar. Monstrances, ornate display cases, were created to display the consecrated host. Stories about bleeding hosts and apparitions of Christ in the consecrated host were widespread.

Protestant reformers reacted to many eucharistic aberrations. The variety of Protestant teachings about the eucharist forced the bishops at the Council of Trent (meeting in twenty-five sessions between 13 December 1545 and 4 December 1563) to restate the meaning of the sacrament.

The Council of Trent produced three documents on the Eucharist, based on Aristotelian scholastic theology. The bishops declared that “Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the appearances of bread and wine.” This presence, due to “transubstantiation,” was based on medieval Aristotelian metaphysics. It was understood as “the real presence,” localized in the sacramental bread, and not just a spiritual presence. The bishops at Trent said nothing about the earlier ceremonial meal and nothing about the real presence of Christ in the Christian community, the Body of Christ.

As sacramental theologian Joseph Martos so often observed, the Catholic Church officially still recognizes the doctrines of the Council of Trent, but contemporary Catholics and Catholic theologians are quietly laying them aside.

Most contemporary theologians no longer speak about the Mass as a sacrifice. The term “transubstantiation” is virtually unknown to younger Catholics. Even the word “mass,” though still in popular use, is disappearing from the vocabulary of theologians and liturgists. Today more prefer to speak of the Mass as the “Eucharistic Liturgy.” (The English word “liturgy” is derived from the ancient Greek leitourgia, which means “a work or service for the people.”)

I remember when my former professor Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009) said we should stop talking about “transubstantiation.” He stressed that in the eucharistic celebration the bread and wine take on a new significance and proposed the term “transignification.”

In 2019 a Pew Research Center survey found that most self-described U.S. Catholics did not believe in transubstantiation. Nearly 69% said they personally believed that the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” U.S. Catholic bishops were greatly dismayed – some even angry — and said something had to be done.

During their November 2021 annual meeting, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted overwhelmingly (201 – 17) to launch a three-year Eucharistic revival initiative – to teach Catholics about the Eucharist — that will culminate this year, 2024, in a National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Most Catholics who reject the idea of Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist think it means that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. In fact, Christ’s presence is not a physical presence.

But we do perceive spiritual realities, however, through physical realities. When one looks, for example, at the physical words on a page, one perceives things that are not physical, namely meanings or ideas. Our eyes look at black marks on a white background, but the mind perceives what the words mean.

Contemporary theologians understand all of the sacraments as ritual actions of words and gestures, which embody and reveal not only human realities but also divine realities. At his Last Supper, Jesus changed the meaning of a common Hebrew ritual to a memorial of his own death and resurrection. He changed the meaning of the bread and wine from what they signified for the Hebrew people to a sacrament of his body and blood.

Today we better understand that just as the Word of God is present in the reading of Sacred Scripture at each liturgy, so also Christ is present sacramentally in the bread and wine celebration shared in the Christian community as signs of spiritual communion with him. As Paul the Apostle stressed, Christians are the Body of Christ.

The worshiping Christian community, the Body of Christ, makes it possible for Christ to be present in the proclaiming of God’s word in the Scriptures, in the thanksgiving that it offers to God in remembrance of Jesus’ Last Supper, and in the giving and receiving of the eucharistic bread and wine.

If we believe the Christian community gathered for Eucharist is the Body of Christ, it is not enough to just believe it. We must also live it, practicing love of God and love of neighbor as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7).

Our Christian faith is not a relic of the past. It is a life-giving program for today and for tomorrow. We are called to be in dialogue with the times and the world in which we live, faithful to the Word of God, and striving to harmonize life and faith.

Jack

 

 

 

 

 

15 thoughts on “EUCHARIST – THE LORD’S SUPPER

  1. Hi Jack, really intriguing article. Please help my understanding – is this article claiming that the early Church had no understanding of the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ? How can I reconcile this perspective with the writings of the Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, which explicitly reference the Real Presence, and even with John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-29? Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks

  2. My dear Jack, many thanks (as always) for such a clear exposition.

    Your reference to Matthew 18:20 calls to mind a retreat that I went on about 60 years ago, conducted by Bernard Bassett SJ, a very popular preacher and retreat director in his time. Father Bassett told us that Jesus’ promise that he would be with us where two or three were gathered in his name only applies if there is a priest present.

    This, he told us, was because Jesus was speaking to his apostles who, having been ordained by him, were all priests. Ergo, the promise only applies to priests. This was my introduction to clericalism (although I didn’t know the word at the time) and it taught me the valuable lesson that a priest is just as capable of anybody else of talking complete nonsense.

  3. Thank you for this series of reflections on the sacraments. Your emphasis that “our Christian faith is not a relic of the past. It is a life-giving program for today and for tomorrow” is much needed in our Church and MUCH APPRECIATED!

  4. Thank you Jack, for sharing your knowledge and wisdom.

    Some thoughts I have gleaned on the meaning of Eucharist:

    In thanksgiving, we take bread and wine, in gratitude for what the Earth produces for us as food, transformed by plants and animals from the emanations of light energy from the Sun.

    We bless food, not to change it into something different, instead recognizing its already inherent sacredness.

    We break bread, and then distribute to one another to eat.

    These are the same four key Eucharistic actions: taking in gratitude, blessing, breaking and distributing, that Yeshua participated in many times, feeding the multitudes, and at table with his friends and many other guests.

    The same actions have been used for tens of thousands of years in all human cultures on this Earth. The action of giving thanks for the gifts that sustain life throughout the evolution of the Cosmos.

    Eucharist is the most feminine face of God. Mary fed Yeshua in utero by her blood for nine months. Then, at her breast for many months after giving birth.

  5. Dear Jack,
    What a beautiful and comforting description of the place Eucharist plays in our Christian faith life. Of all the sacraments, as you have explained, Eucharist feels like the most inclusive, relational, and unifying. The importance of the family feast inviting all and enfolding all really hit me as you narrated the evolution of the eucharistic celebration. Despite divisions and clashes within our church over issues important or trivial, the community gathered around the table is the unifier. Although I have saved all of your writings, this one I will surely revisit again and again for its consoling reminder that we are all in this together with a good and loving God surrounding us with Love. Thanks, dear Jack, for being the voice of God speaking to us!
    Peace,
    Frank

  6. As always you bring new insights and historical details that shed light on the matter of discussion. I am a retired (and married) RC priest, trained in the old theology and familiar with the old language around ministry and sacraments. Perhaps having a professor like you would have made a difference, but then 50 years ago you were learning and developing so perhaps very different than the teacher you are now. I appreciate much of what you say but I am puzzled perhaps by what seems to be a literal acceptance of some of the biblical texts. Did Jesus really suggest that the bread and wine “were his body and blood”? The traditional “last supper” as formulated by Paul, one who definitely was not present, is poetic at best, liturgical as a repeated gesture, but not I think a singular action of Jesus with his group of followers. Did Jesus actually say (Mt18:20) “where two or more are gathered in my name ….” or was this the experience of followers who gathered afterwards. I have been at memorials of the martyrs in Central America where participants expressed the comfort of feeling the presence of those being remembered. As for the 4th gospel, (Jn 17 ff) we know it is marvellous poetry at best, exploring the mystery but surely not the pattern of speech of a Palestinian peasant from Nazareth. All the later development can be attributed to the rise of a ruling caste who then as much now use the sacred mysteries as their private property to rule over the 99% and to numb them into an unthinking obedience. “Transignification” was a step out of the past but not really useful today. Perhaps it is up to groups of followers who gather, remember, share their struggles and failures and occasional successes that make remembering and thanksgiving real. Today I read a comment by Sister Helen Prejean who stood at the side of probably an innocent man who was executed in Texas because the state required atonement of some sort. More than any Pope, Sister Helen was gathered in His name and witnessed the cross.

    1. Many thanks Phil
      All four Gospels evolved from oral traditions, passed on from person to person and from place to place. More than one single person (i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) composed the final versions of the four Gospels as we have them today. Each time the narrators adapted their accounts to the needs, understanding, and cultural / religious backgrounds of their listeners. The Gospels were not written therefore to give us strict “history.”
      Most contemporary biblical scholars hold that the historical Jesus did say the words about the bread and wine at his final meal with his disciples. But they also affirm that the Gospels contain bits of history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus. We see for instance, in Matthew and Luke, two quite different accounts about Jesus’ infancy. Their focus was not primarily to present an historical narrative, but to affirm and proclaim their theological belief about Jesus Christ. Anchored in Christian faith, the authors of the Gospels – using a variety of literary forms — wanted to pass on to future generations their understanding and belief in and about Jesus Christ. Their words inform, stimulate, and encourage us to grow in our own Christian faith.
      Many kind regards
      Jack

  7. How about?:
    Jesus had a deep sense of the “Christic” unity of creation. This is why he was able to acknowledge that bread and wine were, indeed, his body and blood. He did not transform the elements (transubstantiation), but acknowledged that all substance is sacred (consubstantiation).
    For the same reason, he was able to say to Saul, “Why do you persecute ME?”
    For the same reason, he was able to teach the basics of the Final Judgment in Matthew 25.
    Our task is ‘merely” to recognize and acknowledge the “Sacramentality” of all creation. The “Real Presence” is everywhere we recognize it: body and blood; soul and divinity.
    Jesus uderstood his deep connection with the Universal Christ. Thus, he could easily say, “This is my body. This is my blood” over food and drink. It was a form of recognition – not transformation.

Leave a Reply