Well folks,
this is the last of the seven Catholic sacraments, and today we’re talking
about what Catholics call the sacrament of “Holy Communion,” or the “Holy
Eucharist.”
This is the
solemn ceremony where the Catholic priest blesses the bread and wine and it supposedly
becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. The priest then offers it to the members of
the congregation for their spiritual nourishment.
I have
addressed my objections to this topic before in great detail elsewhere on this
blog. See these links for detailed
discussions and the ramifications involved:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/01/access-denied.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/02/eucharistic-wonders-miracles-or.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-catholic-time-machine.html
Source and Summit
How
important is the Eucharist to Catholics?
The Catechism
of the Catholic Church says:
“The
Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’ 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."
(CCC #1324 – Emphasis added)
Notice
that all the other sacraments and “all ecclesiastical ministries and works”
within the Catholic Church tie in with, and point to, the Eucharist.
As we
can see, the Catholic Eucharist is extremely important in the Church. In fact, it is EVERYTHING to them because it
is the ultimate Catholic sacrament. This
is because:
“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.’ 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’”… (CCC #1374 – Emphasis in original).
Did
you get that? The wafer that the
Catholic priest consecrates and gives to the members of the Church to eat is
considered the actual BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ! Yep, you’re eating His body and you’re eating
His soul! Literally!
Not sure how that works, but if you don’t believe that, this is what
happens:
“If any
one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained
truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith
that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be
anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon I)
That’s
right. If you don’t believe their
teaching on the Eucharist, you are under the Catholic Church’s anathema. Anathema means that you will experience the
severest and gravest form of excommunication, where you are eternally condemned
to Hell, unless and until you do the
required penance, to the Catholic Church’s satisfaction. You can find this definition in the New
Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Anathema.”
This is one
reason why, in my first article on the Eucharist years ago on this blog, I said
that this sacrament is either a very good thing, or a very bad thing. If it is what the Church says it is, then it is the most wonderful sacrament of all and we
(Protestants included) should all line up to enthusiastically “receive Jesus”
by eating Him in the form of the Eucharist.
But if it is not what they say
it is, if what they’re eating is not actually Jesus, and what they are
worshipping is a mere piece of bread, they are guilty of outright idolatry, a severe sin throughout the
Old and New Testament (e.g., 1 Kings 21:25-26; Jeremiah
7:16-19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 10:14).
So, if you believe
this bread and wine is the ACTUAL, LITERAL, PHYSICAL Jesus, you’d better be absolutely sure that it is
what they claim it is, and not just take someone’s word for it. You’d better be certain as to whether it is a biblical concept or not!
Absent Does Not Mean Present
Again, the
claim is that the bread and wine are literally Jesus. It says that His physical presence is with us
today. In fact, they call it the “Real
Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (CCC # 1378). But note that the Bible is clear that Jesus’ physical presence here on earth is no
longer the case:
Jesus therefore said, “Let
her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For the poor you always have with you, but
you do not always have Me.” (John 12:7-8 – Emphasis added)
So tell me, what did Jesus
mean when He said this? In what sense do
we NOT have Jesus today? Does this
passage mean that He is not here spiritually? No, I think everyone would agree that we always
have Him in a spiritual sense, right? For
example:
… and lo, I am with you
always, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28:20).
So, John 12:7-8 above is not talking about His presence in a spiritual sense. So, again, if it is not in the spiritual
sense, then in what way is He NOT present with us?
Now, Catholics will claim
that He is present in a “sacramental” sense, but there is absolutely nothing in
Scripture to suggest this concept. The
word “sacramental” (as an adjective) seems to be a conveniently flexible term
in Catholicism, in fact, too flexible to have any real meaning. The truth is, the whole idea of sacraments
and “sacramental presence” is foreign to Scripture. See here:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html
So that leaves a physical vacancy. Jesus is no longer here physically. And if that’s true, the Catholic Church is
wrong about the “Real Presence.”
Again, in John
16:10, Jesus says:
And concerning
righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me.
How do we
“no longer behold Jesus”? Physically, of
course. He ascends to the Father and we
don’t see Him anymore (at least, not until He returns). It’s very simple. Although Catholics will say that we see Jesus
in the Eucharist, the Bible says that we don’t
see Him in the Eucharist, i.e., we no longer behold Him.
Furthermore,
in John
17:11, Jesus, when praying to the Father and about to leave, says:
And I am no more in the
world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee…
If He is no
longer in the world (after His ascension), then, by definition, He is not
physically here, so He can’t physically be in the Eucharist.
You Can’t Handle His Presence!
Ok, another
point I want to make is that the Catholic Church makes extreme claims, and then
later has to backtrack or play word games when called out on it.
One very
unsustainable claim they make is that according to the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, “the whole Christ is truly,
really, and substantially contained” in the Eucharist. And furthermore, “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.” (CCC
#1374)
By the way,
it seems that some Catholics are hesitant to claim that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist. But terms like “the whole Christ,” “entirely
present” and the “fullest sense” would appear to indicate otherwise.
But think
about this. What would happen to us if
we were truly exposed to “the whole Christ” in all His glory? The truth is, if we were ushered into His
presence in the “fullest sense,” we would not be able to endure it, UNLESS we
were in our heavenly bodies.
Again, that
level of exposure to Jesus Christ could only safely happen when we are in our
glorified bodies. Only then could we be
able to endure His absolute fullness and glory.
Some saw Jesus in His new body right after His resurrection, but that
was not the same thing.
Why do I say
this? In the book of Revelation, the
apostle John said:
And I turned to see the
voice that spoke with me…
And when I saw Him, I
fell at His feet as dead… (Revelation 1:12, 17)
Folks, THIS is what happens when a
mere human sees “the whole Christ” in the “fullest sense.” Even John, probably the closest friend of
Jesus on earth, fell as a dead man in
His “fullest” presence. John was utterly
stunned and unable to even look at Jesus.
He was overwhelmed, virtually paralyzed, by the majesty of the Son of
God. If the Eucharist was all that
Catholics say it is, no man would be able to stand before it. Therefore, they are promoting a false
teaching.
So What is the Purpose of Communion?
Catholics
will always point to John chapter 6 when discussing the Eucharist. They’ll say that when Jesus said to “eat My
flesh” and “drink My blood” (John 6:50-58), He was talking about
the Communion service (Eucharist). But
when Jesus said this, He was simply speaking of “coming to Him” and “believing
in Him,” as is plain in a previous verse in the same chapter (John
6:35). This is obviously
symbolic language and it was setting the stage for the rest of the passage.
The truth
is, Communion is simply a holy memorial:
And he
took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is
my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19 – Emphasis added)
The
Catholic Church does rightly believe that there is a “memorial” aspect in celebrating
Communion, but they also falsely believe that the priest’s consecrating of the
bread and wine “actualizes” the event of Calvary (CCC #1104).
The
word “actualize” means “to make actual” or “to make something a reality.” They also claim that the Eucharistic ritual
“re-presents” (makes present) the event of Calvary. That’s why they claim that the victim of the Mass
(Jesus) and the victim of Calvary (2000 years ago) is “one and the same” (CCC
#1367; Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2). The Eucharistic sacrifice (supposedly) brings
the event of Calvary to the here and now.
The Catholic Church reads way too much into the biblical text, instead
of letting it speak for itself. But of
course, this is all a “paschal mystery,” something that we non-Catholics just
can’t seem to grasp. Very often, when it
comes to things that Catholics can’t verify biblically, it appears that another
“mystery” is born in Catholic theology.
Convenient, huh?
But
getting the benefits of Calvary is not “eating and drinking Jesus’ body and
blood.” Nor do these benefits include
time-travel, where God makes the events of Calvary present (CCC # 1104, 1362,
1364, 1366), as though a past event is literally transferred into the present.
No,
the benefits of Calvary are eternal salvation and a sanctified life, and these
are simply received by faith, not by
a ritual done by a priest of any kind.
One Sacrifice Offered, One
Time, By One Person
Here’s
another instance where the Catholic Church plays word games. Catholics are sometimes accused of
sacrificing Jesus over and over when the Eucharist is celebrated. Of course, they deny this and claim that they
are instead re-presenting that same one-time,
once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary.
Even
though that may sound good, it cannot be the case. If the Catholic priest is indeed offering a
sacrifice (as they claim), it is not a legitimate
one. Why? Because only Jesus Christ, Himself, was able to
make this one-time offering/sacrifice of Calvary, and He will never, ever, do
it again, much less offer it daily (Hebrews
10:11-12 – See CCC #1389). That, by definition, is what a one-time
offering means. It was offered once and it was only offered BY JESUS. No man can rightly claim that he is offering,
re-offering or re-presenting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It cannot and will not be done. This Catholic “Eucharistic sacrifice” is not
Jesus. It is a REPLACEMENT of Him, a
false offering (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:2,
10).
Using
fancy verbs like “re-presenting” doesn’t help the Catholic case. Actually, the verbs “sacrifice,” “offer,” and
“present” are all synonyms in the
Bible in the context of sacrifices. They
all mean basically the same thing and they are used interchangeably. So you can’t say, “I’m not sacrificing Him again in the Eucharistic
ritual, I’m only ‘re-presenting’ Him.”
But that ends up being the same thing.
Again, the words are interchangeable.
To “re-present” is to “re-offer” is to “re-sacrifice.” There is no difference.
If
a person successfully offered payment for an item, there would be no other
offer. The payment has been given and
the debt is already paid for. The
transaction is completed.
Likewise,
the event of Calvary is a successful payment/offering by Jesus to pay for the
sin-debt of mankind. Why would there
ever be another offering of the same thing, since it is a completed transaction? If something is paid for, there is no need
for anyone else to present, RE-present or RE-offer that same payment.
Stop
and think, though: If the priest’s RE-offering or RE-presenting of payment is actually
valid, that would mean that the original
payment was illegitimate! Would the
Catholic Church ever admit that Jesus’ payment at the cross was invalid or
illegitimate? Because if the Eucharistic
sacrifice is valid, then Jesus’ payment is indeed null and void. The implications of this are blasphemous and
totally unacceptable!
Conclusion
The
purpose of the true biblical Communion service is not to point to the elements
of the bread and wine. That would be
missing the whole point. It is not to physically “eat Jesus.” The purpose of Communion is to use these signs/elements
to remember the event of Calvary with
heart-felt thankfulness to God for what Jesus did. It is to point to the One who gave Himself
willingly on the cross, who lovingly paid the penalty for mankind’s sins. And that sacrifice is finished! (John 19:30) The whole Communion service is about God’s offering to us, not about the
church’s offering to God.
Well,
folks, that’s the end of this brief address of this series on the seven
Catholic sacraments. Much more could be
said and I know that many Catholics will disagree with me on at least some of
my thoughts. But I have endeavored to
keep things biblically and logically sound, and I hope that this has been food
for thought.
