Friday, April 22, 2011

Eucharist

A comprehensive article on the proofs for the Eucharist.
This will be broken up into 4 sections:
Section 1: scriptural proofs for: real presence, a look at the mass being a propitiatory sacrifice, answers for scriptural arguments against the Eucharist
Section 2: what 21 writers in early church taught about the Eucharist
Section 3: Eucharistic miracles
Section 4: What satanist's believe about the Eucharist



I am going to start out with the words of Jesus in John 6:48-58.

Jn 6:48-58 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Amen Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food , and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

This text is loaded. Take notice that Jesus says that he is the bread from heaven and that we must eat him to have everlasting life. Also note that Jesus continually repeats the saying “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” and does not change his teaching to explain to his audience that he was speaking symbolically. In fact John records Jesus starting out using the Greek word phago for eat but after he gets challenged about eating his flesh Jesus doesn’t lighten up and say he was only speaking symbolically but he intensifies his argument in vs. 54 by using the word trogo for eat which means to gnaw. Trogo is only used six times in the New Testament; four times in Jn 6, once in at the last supper in John’s gospel, and once in Matthew. The phrase ‘eat flesh’ is a Hebrew idiom when used figuratively means to hate or to mock like in Ps 27:2 and Is 49:26 for example. The RSV version says utter slanders but the KJV says to eat my flesh. So if taken figuratively Jesus would be saying if you utter slanders at me you will have eternal life. That makes no sense. Jesus also in the same series of verses mentions that the bread that he gives is greater than the manna of old. If taking Jesus figuratively that would mean a symbol is greater than a reality. Not only is that not logical but it also breaks the laws of typology. The archetype is always greater than the type. The manna would be greater because it was a reality if Jesus was speaking figuratively about his bread. The manna or (bread from heaven) in the old testament was kept in a golden jar in the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle as seen in Ex 16:33 and Heb 9:2-4 . We to in the Catholic Church keep our bread from heaven (Jesus) in a golden tabernacle when not being distributed at Mass. We can also note that in Jn 6:4 it says the Passover was at hand which points out to us that the things he mentioned here in Jn 6 are a teaching that is referring to what is going to happen on the Passover. Later we will see that Jesus celebrates the first mass on the Passover where he changes bread and wine into his body and blood the first time.

It is interesting to note that if we go all the way back to Genesis we see the first example of the Eucharist foreshadowed in the garden of Eden. Gen 3:22 tells us that Adam and Eve need to be expelled from the garden because they will EAT and LIVE FOREVER from the tree of life. The Cross is our tree of life and we must eat Jesus and we will live forever as we just heard Jesus say over and over again in Jn 6. I don’t think it was coincidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem a name that means house of bread and he was laid in a manger which was a trough that animals ate out of.

In verse 66 in John Chapter 6 (7 verses after Jesus finishes explaining the Eucharist) Jesus’ disciples (not the apostles) quit following him because they were taking him literally and could not accept the teaching. Whenever his followers misunderstood what Jesus meant Jesus corrected them like in Mt 16:5-12. In this passage the apostles misunderstanding did not have bearing on their salvation yet Jesus corrects them. Here in Jn 6 it would not make sense for Jesus not to correct their understanding because this would have bearing on their salvation. Jesus lets his followers go because there was no need to correct what they were thinking because they had got it right and rejected it. Jesus was God as all Christians believe so that means Jesus did not sin. So would Jesus swear a false oath? Of course not. If you notice Jesus when explaining the Eucharist he swears an oath twice. When he said Amen Amen (some translations will say I tell you the truth) he was swearing an oath. Num 5:21-22 shows that saying Amen Amen is swearing an oath. Combining this oath with the necessity of taking eat flesh literally due to the Hebrew idiom solidifies Jesus’ teaching.

One objection that is commonly brought up concerning these verses in Jn 6 is Jn 6:63 which reads The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. The objection is: see he is talking spiritually not physically. The thing is spiritual never means symbolic as they would interpret it. One does not say the holy symbolic instead of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual is just as real physical. Jesus did not say his flesh is of no avail if he did there would be no need of the incarnation. He says the flesh because it is going to take eyes of faith to recognize his body under the appearance of bread and wine. Also if you look at the two verses prior to him saying the flesh profits nothing; Jn 6:61 says “Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!” The apostles saw Jesus really ascending into heaven not him symbolically ascending. One argument brought up that we can’t eat his blood is in Lev 17:14 which says “because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.” Precisely the reason it is forbidden in the Old Testament is why it is required in the New. The life is in the blood and to have eternal life we need to be partaking of the eternal God. The requirement banning consuming blood also is referring to the blood of creatures. Jesus is not a creature, he is the eternally begotten son of God.

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray the Our Father or the (Lord’s Prayer) Matthew records very interesting language. Many translations in Mt 6:11 say “give us this day our daily bread” however the word daily is not the best translation. Every place in the bible when it says daily the two Greek words kata hemera meaning (every day or daily) are used but in Mt 6:11 and Lk 11:3 both are the Our Father prayer, the Greek word epiousious is used. Epi meaning above or beyond and ousious meaning substance. This is why the St Jerome in the 4th century translated this word into the Latin word supersubstantialem or super substantial as the Douay Rheims reads. Doesn’t this sound like the super natural bread that is the substance of God himself, the Eucharist? This Greek word is not only not used elsewhere in the bible but is not found anywhere in Greek or Hellenistic literature showing that this is no ordinary bread Jesus is talking about. St Cyprian of Carthage a third century father of the Church in his 4th treatise paragraph 8 makes this connection between the Our Father and the Eucharist saying: “And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, unless by committing some heinous sin, by being prevented and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ's body.” He goes on to quote Jn 6 emphasizing eating is to have life and not eating is having no life. Cyril of Jerusalem also mentions this aspect of the Lords prayer in his Catechetical lecture 23 paragraph 15.

The Mass

Lets now take a look at the mass and why we need it. Protestants say that Jesus’ death on the cross was a once for all propitiation of our sins quoting Jn 19:30 with Jesus saying “it is finished” therefore the mass cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice. The Catholic Church says that Jesus’ death was once for all but like the Old Testament Sacrifices that prefigured the New, the death was only the first half. Without the second half, the first half would be of no value. The second half was the presentation of the fruits of the sacrifice into the sanctuary. We see Paul mentioning the first half without the second would be in vain in 1 Cor 15:17 when he says “if Christ has not been raised from the dead then your faith is in vain.” We see in Heb 9:24 that Jesus entered the heavenly sanctuary and in Heb 8:1-2 that even though he is seated at the right hand of the throne of majesty he is a priest serving in the heavenly sanctuary. Unlike Old Testament high priests, Jesus enters the heavenly sanctuary and does not leave.

The protestant view does not work because one can not be propitiated for sins that haven’t happened yet. There needs to be a continual application of propitiation of sins because if the propitiation was once for all including future sins then there is no guarantee that the person would be repentant which is a requirement of forgiveness. Lets take a look at what Heb 10:26 has to say on this matter. Heb 10:26 “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” In this verse the application of propitiation is based on knowledge of sin and obeying. This shows that propitiation is not once for all applied because those can have propitiation and then not have propitiation; meaning the sacrifice is not being applied to those who sin after having knowledge of sin and disobeying. Likewise Heb 5:9 says “And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.” Here again we see the application of propitiation is based on those who obey not just those who believe. Heb 2:17 says “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” This is the only time the phrase “for the sins” follows propitiation in the New Testament showing that there is a shift of propitiating God for that which is offensive to God. The words “to make” shows an on going propitiation because it is the present tense infinitive Greek word hilaskomai which is Christ’s ongoing work as priest. If Christ’s office as priest is not over then his propitiation is not over because this is what priests do and we already saw that Jesus does not leave the heavenly sanctuary and he ever lives to intercede for us.

Lets try to understand more about the Mass as a sacrifice and how it relates to the last supper, the cross and the heavenly sanctuary. In Heb 13:15 a "sacrifice of praise" is mentioned which refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. For example: Lev 7:12-15 and Lev 22:29-30 also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

One might argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed at Mass. Who said sacrifices had to be bloody? Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God in Rom 12:1 This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death just like the wave offerings of Aaron in Num 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices. The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and life giving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

To understand how through the Mass Jesus can continually apply propitiation for sins we need to look at the nature of Jesus’ priesthood. A priest is someone who offer sacrifice. Heb 6:20 explains that Jesus is our High Priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek was a priest and king who only appears for 3 verses in Gen 14:18-20. In those 3 verses Melchizedek offers a sacrifice of bread and wine. Jesus like Melchizedek was also priest and king. So in order to be a priest in the order of Melchizedek he needs to offer a sacrifice of bread and wine which he does on the Passover in the upper room. The sacrifice of bread and wine that Jesus offers he elevates and transforms it into his own body and blood, our Passover lamb. Jesus holds his priesthood permanently and isn’t doing nothing in heaven. Heb 7: 24 says “but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Rev 13:8 says “the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world” so this reality is not a hard concept for God to do. Jesus was both human and God so his sacrifice is both in time and eternal. Heb 8:5 says this is what God told Moses to model the earthly tabernacle from. In Heb. 9:23 the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these, “sacrifices” in the plural. Jesus died once and there is only one sacrifice being offered in heaven. Then why the plural? This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Heb 8:4 says that “Jesus would not be a priest if he were on earth” so Jesus’ offering in heaven is very important. At Mass the last supper, the cross and this heavenly offering of Jesus (which is outside of time) is made present to us. The Priest acting in persona christi (in the person of Christ) doing what Jesus commanded at the last supper saying “this is my body, this is my blood” brings the heavenly reality present to us.

Last Supper

At the last supper when Jesus celebrated the first mass he said:
Lk 22:19 “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” This phrase “do this in memory of me” is very important in understanding that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus on the cross represented. Another translation of “do this in memory of me” can be “offer this as my memorial sacrifice”. The word for “do” here in Greek is poieo. When it is used in the context of the Passover it is used as celebrate like the NIV reads in (Num 9:4, 10, 13, 14; Dt 16:1). How they celebrated the Passover was with a sacrifice and Jesus is celebrating the Passover at the last supper. When it is used else where in the context of sacrifice it means to offer sacrifice like (Lev 9:7, Ps 66:15, Ex 29:39.) The Greek word for remembrance used here is anamnesis. This word is used only 6 times in the Old Testament and the New Testament not including the last supper accounts. 5 of those times it is used in a sacrificial context like (Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10, Leviticus 24:7) as well as (Ps 38, Ps 70) which commentators say were psalms that were sung during the offerings of (Num 10 and Lev 24).

If the last supper was not a sacrificial context Luke could have used 9 other Greek words that are used elsewhere in New Testament. Mnemosunon is one example which would have been more fitting to use if it was not a sacrifice. Strong’s concordance gives this definition: a memorial that by which the memory of any person or thing is preserved.

Matthew’s version of the last supper reads:
Mt 26:26-29 “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, 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.”

One argument that protestants use to show that Jesus is only speaking symbolically here is when he says in verse 29 that he will not drink the fruit of the vine again until he drinks it new in the kingdom saying that he already consecrated the wine. Jesus then should not have said he would not drink from the fruit of the vine but said drink of his blood again. They say how can it go from wine to blood and back to wine again. This can be answered 4 different ways. (1)The fruit of the vine could be his blood because he said in Jn 15 I am the vine and the fruit of the vine would be the blood of the grape like it says in (Gen 49:11, Deut 32:14, 1 Mac 6:32) and in Sirach 50:16 it is used in sacrificial context which fits with all of the other sacrificial contexts we have seen so far and will see later on. (2) The Greek word for fruit of the vine is genima which means generation or rebirth and is used 9 times in the New Testament. Rebirth would be good way to express what the power of his blood can do. (3) In Luke’s version in Lk 22:17-20 He says fruit of the vine at the meal portion of the last supper which is before the consecration. (4) Jesus is using phenomenal logical language. For example: saying the sun came up doesn’t mean we believe the sun revolves around the earth. It is just an expression that is not meant to be scientific.

Some say that when Jesus said “This is My Body” he really meant this represents, symbolizes, or signifies my body. One of my favorite quotes from St. Cyril of Jerusalem who wrote in 347ad puts it so simply: “Since Christ Himself has said, This is My Body who shall dare to doubt that it is His Body?”

What more would Jesus have to say to make it clearer? This really, really, really, really, really is my body. Jesus said this is my blood which is poured out for our forgiveness. Did Jesus pour out symbolic blood for our forgiveness or did he pour out his real blood?

As many believe Jesus spoke Aramaic which would mean that the Greek is an inspired translation. In light of that a study was published in 1828 by Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman Titled Horae Syriacae where he catalogues 40 Syriac expressions that would mean “to signify” which would require the Greek to have been translated into a symbolic Greek word not estin which is the word for is.

Notice Jesus says that his blood is poured out (or shed, in other translations). The Greek word for poured out is ekcheo and it is a present participle. When the present participle is used with the present indicative estin (the word for is) that means the action is happening in the present time not in the near future. Which shows that we again have a sacrificial link with the last supper and the cross. True, it is the cross that makes this sacrifice efficacious. But the point is that at this specific time it is the blood that he is giving the apostles now is that which he is presently pouring out. The word ekcheo also has sacrificial connotations. When the word poured out is used in the Septaguint Old Testament, it also has sacrificial connotations. It appears 12 times in the context of sacrifice. Poured out libation of water or of wine like in Sirach 50:16 and Isaiah 57:6 for example. In 9 other uses, refers to shedding blood, or pouring out blood as part of the sacrificial ceremony. This pouring out wasn’t for getting rid of the blood, it was pouring out that blood at the base of the altar as part of the ritual of the sacrifice like in Dt 12:27 for example. Truly this is the cup of salvation mentioned in Ps 116:13.

With all this sacrificial language we see being used fits perfectly with the context of the last supper. It was on the Passover and the Passover was a sacrificial meal. In Ex 12:3-4 God tells the Israelites that to be saved they must sacrifice the Passover lamb and eat it. He says in verse 17 ‘let this be an ordinance forever“ and in verse 15 it says if they did not observe this Passover and all those proceeding it correctly they would be cut off. Paul says 1 Cor 5:7-8 “Christ are Passover lamb has been sacrificed therefore keep the feast.” So in order for Jesus to be the messiah he has to fulfill the Passover and become our sacrificial lamb who we must eat. In Mt 26:29 and Mk 14:25 Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which consisted of eating unleavened bread and requires them to drink four cups of wine. Jesus only presents the first three cups and He stops at the Third Cup called the “Cup of Blessing.” This is why Paul in 1 Cor 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist. In Mt 26:30 and Mk 14:26 they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation as Jesus tells them. This Fourth Cup of Consummation will not be drunk until he is on the cross. This shows that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice. In Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 Jesus acknowledges that He has one more cup to drink. In John 19:29; Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; Jesus is provided sour wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was the same branch that was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30 Jesus says “It is consummated.” Some translations say it is finished. So once again we see the sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross.
Heb13:10 says “that We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.” Those who serve the tent are the levitical priests. They have no right to eat at our alter because they do not believe. From the beginning of the Bible to the end, whenever altar is spoken of, it speaks of some kind of physical sacrifice and here the writer to the Hebrews again confirms all that we have been saying about the last supper being a sacrifice. Ex 12:48 also says that no foreigner can partake of the Passover sacrifice unless he be circumcised. We read in Col 2:12 that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. This corresponds with the Catholic belief about the Eucharist. That is any one who is not baptized cannot receive the Eucharist.

We can also see other parallels with Jesus establishing this New Covenant with God establishing the Old Covenant with Moses. In Ex 24:6-11 we read that:
Ex 24:6-11 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.” 8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.” The parallels we see is that to inaugurate the covenant there was a sacrificial animal, blood being sprinkled on the people and there was a meal. We also see that Moses as a type Christ with three people
( Aaron, Nadab, Abihu) like Peter, James, John plus 70 elders like Jesus sending out 70 disciples.

Other Proofs

Though the external appearance of bread and wine stay the same, the essence or substance (the very nature that makes bread bread) is now no longer bread but his body. We call this change Transubstantiation which means a change of substance. Some say that since transubstantiation was a term coined in the 13th century and is not in the bible then it isn’t true. Like the trinity and incarnation these words are not in scripture but that does not mean it isn’t true. The Trinity wasn’t used to describe 3 person yet 1 God until Tertullian used it in the 3rd century. Just because the language to explain these mysteries were not around in the first century does not make them not true. The Latin word transubstantiation was around in the early centuries in Greek as metaousio (change substance), metabavllein (to change) used by Cyril of Jerusalem, metapoiein (to change anew, alter) used by Gregory of Nyssa,

This may be a hard concept to understand but if we look at a blue shirt, the blue is not the shirt, it is a characteristic of the shirt. If we take bread, look at it under a microscope, then expose it to nuclear radiation, and then look at it, the two on the molecular level are going to look different even though it looks the same to the naked eye. Can Jesus change forms if he wants to? Of course, that is no problem for God. We see and example of this on the road to Emmaus In Mk 16:12 it says that Jesus appeared in another form so the disciples couldn‘t recognize him. In Luke’s version in Luke chapter 24. Jesus says Mass to the two disciples. There were scripture readings, a homily, and when he broke bread and gave them the Eucharist their eyes were immediately opened and they recognized Jesus. Did ordinary bread make them recognize Jesus? I don’t think so. This form of the mass is also seen in use in Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

In 1 Cor 10:18-20 is says those that partake of the pagan sacrifices are partakers with devils. He then compares the sacrifices to idols with the sacrifice to God saying you can’t partake of the Lord’s table and the table of devils. The phrase "table of the Lord" would have been understood as an altar of sacrifice because (Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12), all use the phrase "table of the Lord" in reference to an altar of sacrifice. Also the flip side of sacrifices to idols and partaking with demons is the participation of the table of the lord and is a partaking of God.

Malachi long prophesied about the Mass in Mal 1:11. He mentions a pure sacrifice that will be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting. The Didache chapter 14 written around 70 ad makes this connection between the sacrifice of the mass and pure offering being made every time in every place. It is estimated 350000 Masses are said a day around the world. That means every second 4 masses start and only at Mass is the only ever pure sacrifice, Jesus’ once for all sacrifice is re presented to us.

1 Cor 10:16-17 reads “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

There are several things to point out in these verses. In verse 16 Paul mentions we are partaking of the body of the Lord in the bread that they break. In verse 17 he explains that all that eat this “one bread” (not many different loaves all around the world) we become one body. How can we become one body if are not partaking of Jesus who is uniting us together to form his mystical body. It mentions the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? It would have been very easy to say is the bread we break not a symbol of the body of Christ but they use the word Greek word koin┼Źnia which means intercourse, fellowship, intimacy. I wouldn’t feel very intimate with Jesus if I was just merely receiving bread.

In 1 Chron 9:32 the bread of presence is being offered every Sabbath just like we gather on the new Sabbath (the Lord’s Day) for the breaking of bread (Acts 20:7).

I’ll end this scripture section with a verse in:

1 Cor 11:27-29 “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.”

This verse shows that one profanes Jesus and renders judgment on himself by receiving communion in an unworthy manner. Lets use this analogy: If you punch a picture of Obama do you go to jail for it? No. If you punch Obama do you go to jail for it? Yes. So why would you receive judgment (the King James version uses the word damnation) for profaning a symbol? The answer is because it is not a symbol but Jesus himself.

The teaching of 28 Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist
For 26 pages of quotes click here.


Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyraeans ch 6-8 [50-117 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"
Justin Martyr First Apology ch 66 [100-165 AD]
"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 likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book V Chapter 2 [120-180 AD]
When Christ visited us in his grace, he did not come to what did not belong to him: also, by shedding his true blood for us, and exhibiting to us his true flesh in the Eucharist, he conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation...
Clement of Alexandria The Paedagogus Book II ch 2 [150-215 AD]
...is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul...
Tertullian Against Marcion Book 5 ch 8(160-240 ad)
In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom
Hippolytus Extant Works and Fragments On Proverbs 10:1 (170-236 ad)
--"Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you;" by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.
Origen Against Celsus book 8 ch 33 (185-254)
But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it...
Dionysius the Great Epistle 9 (190-265ad)
For I should not dare to renew afresh, after all, one who had heard the giving of thanks, and who had answered with others Amen; who had stood at the holy table, and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and had received it, and for a very long time had been a partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Henceforth I bade him be of good courage, and approach to the sacred elements with a firm faith and a good conscience, and become a partaker of them. But he makes no end of his wailing, and shrinks from approaching to the table; and scarcely, when entreated, can he bear to be present at the prayers.
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 10.1 (200-270 ad)
before penitence was fulfilled, before confession even of the gravest and most heinous sin was made, before hands were placed upon the repentant by the bishops and clergy, dare to offer on their behalf, and to give them the eucharist, that is, to profane the sacred body of the Lord, although it is written, "Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
Eusebius of Caesarea Church History book 7 (265-340ad)
But I did not dare to do this; and said that his long communion was sufficient for this. For I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the Amen; who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and who had received it, and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ
Athanasius Apologia Contra Arianos Part 1 par 12 (296-373)
this belongs only to those who preside over the Catholic Church. for to you only it appertains to administer the Blood of Christ, and to none besides.
Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity book 8 par 13 (300-367 ad)
Hence, if indeed Christ has taken to Himself the flesh of our body, and that Man Who was born froth Mary was induced Christ, and we indeed receive in a mystery the flesh of His body--(and for this cause we shall be one, because the Father is in Him and He in us), -- how can a unity of will be maintained, seeing that the special property of nature received through the sacrament is the sacrament of a perfect unity?
Ephraim the Syrian On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh Hymn XVIII par 16 (306-373 ad)
Blessed is he the priest who in the sanctuary,--offers to the Father the Son of the Father,--the fruit that is plucked from our tree, though it be wholly of the Divine Majesty!--Blessed the hands that are hallowed and offer Him!—
Gregory Nazianzen Oration 18 par 10 (325-389 ad)
although greatly moved even by the misfortunes of strangers, as to allow a sound of woe to burst forth before the Eucharist, or a tear to fall from the eye mystically sealed, or any trace of mourning to be left on the occasion of a festival, however frequent her own sorrows might be; inasmuch as the God-loving soul should subject every human experience to the things of God.
Basil Letter de Spiritu Sancto ch 37 (329-379 ad)
For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle(8), "is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer"; not that it advances by the process of eating(9) to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, "This is My Body."
Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 19 par 7 [315-386 AD]
 "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"
Gregory of Nyssa On the Baptism of Christ (325-386 ad)
The bread again is at first common bread, but when the sacramental action consecrates it, it is called, and becomes, the Body of Christ.
Ambrose of Milan On the Christian Faith book 4 par 125 (340-397 ad)
Then He added: "For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord's death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones." Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterous efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, "do show the Lord's Death."
Jerome dialogue against the Luciferians introduction (347-420 ad)
Still it is one thing, he says,(3) to admit a penitent neophyte, another to admit a man to be bishop and celebrate the Eucharist
John Chrysostom Homily 82 on Matthew’s Gospel ch 1 (347-407 ad)
Therefore also He saith, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover,"that is, to deliver you the new rites, and to give a passover, by which I am to make you spiritual.
And He Himself drank of it. For lest on hearing this, they should say, What then? do we drink blood, and eat flesh? and then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended),therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood.
Zosimus Life of the Blessed (348-418 ad)
But when the soul of the blessed [+] one, falling upon its face, worships the Lord, then we also falling [+] down worship the Lord in that same hour, and when the Lord raises [+] it up then we also arise; and when it goes to its appointed place, [+] we also go into the church, fulfilling the eucharist of the Lord.
Egeria Discription of the Liturgical Year in Jerusalem XXXV par 2 (348-418 ad)
Then, after the dismissal [+] at the martyrium, they arrive behind the [+] Cross, where only one hymn is said and prayer is [+] made, and the bishop offers the oblation there, and [+] all communicate.
Augustine of Hippo City of God Book 21 ch 20 (354-430 ad)
For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, "We, being many, are one bread, one body;" so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the catholic Church, they shall not die eternally
Theodoret Dialogue 3 [393-457 AD]
"They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which of His goodness the Father raised...
Leo the Great, Pope Letter 59 [395-461 AD]
They are to be rejected who deny the truth of Christ's flesh, a truth repeated by every recipient at the Holy Eucharist...
Gregory the Great Letters Book 2 letter 48 (540-604 ad)
For it is right that one who has sold our Lord Jesus Christ to a heretic for money received, as is said to have been done, should be removed from handling the mysteries of His most holy body and blood.
Venerable Bede Ecclesiastical History of England Book 4 ch 24 (672-735 ad)
"What need of the Eucharist? for you are not yet appointed to die, since you talk so merrily with us, as if you were in good health." "Nevertheless," said he, "bring me the Eucharist." Having received It into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and had no complaint against him, nor any quarrel or grudge.
John of Damascus Exposition of the Faith book 4 ch 8 (676-749 ad)
The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, "This is My body," not, this is a figure of My body: and "My blood," not, a figure of My blood.





Eucharistic Miracles

We don’t just have scriptural and historical witnesses to this reality we also have what are called Eucharistic Miracles. Miracles give witness to the truth according to Heb 2:3-5 which says: “how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
There have been many of these miracles varying in type and I will just give a few of them but you can google Eucharistic miracles to read more about them.

The first recorded Eucharistic miracle other than the miracle that happens at every mass occurred in the 8th Century in Lanciano, Italy. The name Lanciano means lance it was tradition that the centurion Longinus who pierced the side of Jesus with the lance came from this town which is off the coast of the Adriatic Sea. In this town there was a monk who had begun to have real doubts about Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist. When celebrating Mass, as he spoke the words of the consecration the host changed into a circle of "flesh" surrounding the remaining Eucharist and the wine transformed into visible "blood". The "flesh" remained intact but the "blood" subsequently divided into five separate globules correlating to Jesus‘ 5 wounds. The monk was reinvigorated in his faith as he witnessed this transformation. He later decided to weigh the "blood" globules and found to his amazement that any combination of the globules was equal in weight to any other combination and that the smallest globule weighed exactly the same as the largest - clearly defying any natural explanation. The spiritual explanation is that you always receive the complete Jesus whether you receive a large host or a small one, half a cup or just a drop. The "flesh" and "blood" have been maintained in special containers housed in the monastery and its successors ever since. In a modern evaluation of this "flesh" and "blood" conducted by several Italian university professors in 1970 under rigorous conditions, they found the following:
The container that held the "flesh" was not hermetically sealed so that the Eucharistic host at the center of the "flesh" was no longer present and the "blood" globules had hardened. Samples were taken of both the "flesh" and the "blood" and were sent to a number of laboratories for microscopic, biochemical and other scientific evaluation. The "flesh" was found to be striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (the wall of the heart), of human origin and contained absolutely no trace of any substances that could have been used to preserve it. It was real Flesh! The "blood" sample was found to be human blood, type AB which is the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin (the burial cloth of Christ). This blood type is not common the area of Lanciano only .5 - 1% and only 14 - 15% in Palestine and the middle east. The flesh was found to be of the same type as well. It was truly Blood! The proteins found in the blood sample were consistent with proteins found in fresh human blood despite the fact that the container housing the flesh and blood from the Eucharist was not hermetically sealed. These proteins are usually gone within 20-30 minutes after death yet they are still present 1250 years later. The Higher Council of the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed these findings in a 15 month examination period with 500 examinations. Thus, for more than 1200 years the physical reality of Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist has been preserved for all to observe and renew their faith. There are more than two dozen documented reports of similar Eucharistic miracles occurring throughout Europe between the 10th and 15th centuries and dozens more since then with many of them having enclosed the flesh and blood samples in special containers where they can still be seen today.

In Bolsena, Italy in 1263 Peter of Prague, a German priest, was celebrating Mass at the Church of Saint Christina in Bolsena. He had been entertaining serious doubts about the reality of Christ's presence in the consecrated Host. As he completed the words of Consecration blood started to seep from the Consecrated Host and run down over his hands onto the altar and the altar communion linen (corporal). Seeing this, he interrupted the Mass and traveled quickly to Orvieto, where Pope Urban IV was then residing. On hearing his story, the Pope forgave him for having doubts and sent representatives to investigate. Parishioners and others confirmed the priest's story and the host and stained linens were there for all to see. Their investigation, when completed, confirmed all that the priest had related. One year later, in August 1264 Pope Urban instituted the feast of Corpus Christi (Body of Christ).

Methuen, Massachusetts was the site of another inexplicable Eucharistic phenomenon in 1995. In preparing to distribute Communion, a Eucharistic minister at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church opened the tabernacle to discover a Consecrated Host "bleeding" inside. The host was transferred to a container, apparently still bleeding, and retained there for further examination. Aside from a number of witnesses who observed the bleeding Host, the Host itself was sent to Dr. B. Lipinski, a biochemist, for non-invasive examination. He ascertained that the reddish substance was human blood. With this determination, a small sample of the crusted blood was sent to the California Laboratory of Forensic Sciences. After several preliminary tests confirmed the presence of blood, on August 30, 1995, a crossover electrophoresis was conducted on the sample which unequivocally identified the reddish substance as human blood.

There have been Saints that live on the Eucharist alone
Bl. Catherine of Racconigi who died in 1547, who was also a stigmatist, lived on the Holy Eucharist alone for 10 years.
Bl. Elizabeth the Good who died in 1420 was known not to have eaten for nearly three years with exception of Holy Communion and there have been others as well.
St Alexandrina Maria da Costa was born in April 1904. In 1918 wishing to preserve her chastity she jumped out of an upstairs window fleeing 3 men who broke into her house. She ended up damaging her spine beyond repair and had to be bed ridden for the rest of her life. In that time she became close to Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Keep me company in the Blessed Sacrament. I remain in the tabernacle night and day, waiting to give my love and grace to all who would visit me. But so few come. I am so abandoned, so lonely, so offended…. Many…do not believe in my existence; they do not believe that I live in the tabernacle. They curse me. Others believe, but do not love me and do not visit me; they live as if I were not there… You have chosen to love me in the tabernacles where you can contemplate me, not with the eyes of the body, but those of the soul. I am truly present there as in Heaven, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.” In 1942 Jesus told her
“You will not take food again on earth. Your food will be my Flesh; your drink will be my Divine Blood .” So on Good Friday 1942 she began an absolute fast. Defying the laws of physiology and biochemistry she agreed to medical observation which confirmed that she was not sneaking food. This fast of no food but the Eucharist lasted for 13 years until her death.

What Satanists believe about the Eucharist

Satanists in order to mock God the most they take God’s revealed truth and do the opposite when it comes to their worship services. Jesus gave us the Mass and Satanists know the value of the sacraments. Every satanic ritual in higher echelon is a take off of the sacramental right in the Catholic Church. Satanism was structured specifically as the opposite of the Catholic Church. It possessed its own sacraments, all of which were evil opposites of the Catholic sacraments, and it performs dark rites with the Black Mass being its primary, which was a backwards imitation of the Catholic Mass.
The Black Mass’ main objective to desecrate a consecrated host that has been stolen from a Catholic Mass.
Most Satanists and Bonafide (real) Witches can discern a Consecrated Host among thousands of unconsecrated hosts.
You remember in the Gospels about the demonic in Mk 5:2-8 He lived isolated among the tombs. He could not be bound by chains and would cut himself. He never met Jesus yet he knew even from a distance exactly who he was.
When a former Satanist was asked how they could tell the difference he replied “Because of the hate,” “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.” Some of the saints also had this mystical knowledge of the Lord’s Eucharistic presence, but this knowledge flowed from their deep union with Christ. Satanists, on the other hand, knew Christ’s presence because his worship of Satan had worked the opposite mystical connection to the Eucharist. He knew Jesus was there not because of his love for Jesus, but because of his deep hate.

Betty Brennan is another witness of what went on in black masses. She was raised a Catholic, became a Satanist, returned to the Church. What drove her away was the loss of a child who was slowly dieing for the first 2 years of its life due to a terminal brain illness. With this loss she wanted revenge on God. She was a member of a musical orchestra and it was there that she met a few members who were satanic priests. She would vent her feelings to them and for the first time she wasn’t told that she shouldn’t have this anger towards God. This is how she got involved in Satanism. When she recalls her story she tells that she use to act Catholic by going to Mass for her husband and children. She would stay for the first half of Mass (liturgy of the word) but she ran out of mass before the Liturgy of the Eucharist because of her fear of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament. This went on for a while until she quit going. Later on she had an elderly friend who needed to be driving a hundred miles to a healing mass. Betty would wait outside while the healing mass was going on. She would supernaturally turn the lights off but the priest over came that with candles. She would also do other things to cause trouble. Betty took her friend to these healing Masses several times. Her friend told Betty that she has been to services at this church before but only when Betty was there was when weird things happened. She was invited to go in on one of these trips but as soon as she entered the sanctuary she froze in fear of Jesus’ presence in the tabernacle. She physically couldn’t move. When she regained motor functions she ran out and down the stairs to the exit. She was moving so fast that she knocked over an elderly priest who was going up the stairs. Betty was in a sweat and in a state of nervous panic. When the priest got up he asked Betty “Who are you in the name of Jesus come out”. It was at that time when she began a healing process which led to her conversion back to the church.



So we have scriptural, historical, miraculous, and even the witness of Satanists to back us up on this amazing gift God has given us. St Augustine in the 4th century said "God in his omnipotence could not give more, in His wisdom He knew not how to give more, in His riches He had not more to give, than the Eucharist."