The Eucharist – Establishment and Form

ESTABLISHMENT

The establishment of the Eucharist took place at the Last Supper. The meaning of what happened at the Last Supper will be expanded upon in the next post.

“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 the 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. 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.� (Matthew 26:26-29)

“And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, Take; this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.� (Mark 14:22-25, this section continues to verse 34)

“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 until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. 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.� (Luke 22:14-20)

These are the three synoptic accounts of the Last Supper. These three accounts are the institution of the Eucharist. Catholics believe that these words constitute the foundation for the Real Presence – the dogma that states that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist.

When you boil everything down, there are really only two interpretive options. You can accept the Catholic position that the Last Supper narratives mean that Christ is sacramentally present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, you can take the Protestant view, refuse the idea that Christ is really present, and say that he was speaking figuratively or metaphorically. There may be a great number of variations on these two themes, and we could debate them endlessly, but they all lead back to these two fundamental options.

Is Christ there, or did he speak metaphorically?

LINGUISTICS

Let us pick apart the text of the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.

1. Do this in Anamnesis of me

You may remember Anamnesis from this post.

Anamnesis is that word that doesn’t translate into English well. It means that the remembrance should be active, not just a function of passive memory. At least according to Luke (and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:25), Christ is asking us to take action in the remembrance of Him. What action is being described here? The taking, blessing and breaking of bread. This is an active remembrance, not a symbolic function of memory alone.

2. Do this

Again, to Luke (and Paul in 1 Corinthians), something has to be done. The fact that the words “do this� are use in conjunction with the active “remembrance of me�, leads more and more to the conclusion that this is a positive command to take a specific action.

3. Poured out

In all three synoptic Gospels, the phrase “poured out� is used relative to the cup of His Blood. This again reflects a literal reality as the Greek has no symbolic language here.

4. This is

Εστιν (estin) is the Greek form of “is�. Christ is saying that this IS his body and blood. There is no indication in the Greek of a metaphor. There is no “this is like�, or “this represents�, or “this is a symbol of.� The statement is plain – THIS IS. Not only that, but this statement of fact is related in all three synoptic gospels as well as Paul’s version in 1 Corinthians (and in a different form in John 6).

I am no expert on Aramaic. (I know what it looks like, but that’s about it.) But experts on Aramaic have said that there are some 30 words in that language to mean “represent� or “symbolize�. Greek can convey symbolism as well and in a variety of ways. These symbolic words are not used in any of these texts. It simply says THIS IS.

5. What if…

Let’s say, for the sake of argument that Matthew, Mark and Luke really meant that the body and blood Jesus spoke of was nothing more than symbol. If we accept the idea that Jesus is speaking metaphorically, then we are forced to read meaning into the text that is not there. It would be more like:

“(Here in) this bread is my body.�
“This bread is (symbolic of) my body.�
“This bread is (like unto) my body.�
“This is (symbolic of) my blood of the covenant, which is poured (symbolically) out for many.�

None of these actually works with the Greek original. In each and every case you have to read meaning into the text. Jesus would have said what he meant. If He had been misunderstood, He would have corrected His listeners.

We have a situation where we are positively told to do something active in remembrance of our Lord. We’re told that something can be poured out for the forgiveness of sins, and that it IS what Christ says it is. Add to that, the fact that Jesus’ words as recorded in Greek can’t really be stretched into symbolic meaning.

I’ve looked at several Protestant study Bibles to prepare for this series. What I’ve found are a few statements that are common to each of them. Each says, in the notes below the text, that Jesus is speaking metaphorically. What they don’t explain is how. Not one of them shows how to take “This is my body� as symbolic language. I can understand where some people can see metaphor in Matthew 16 and John 6. At least the text gives the reader room to see metaphor. However, in the synoptic Gospel quotes above there simply is not any room for this sort of misinterpretation. (And I should immediately follow this by saying that I’m not giving any ground on the text of Matthew 16 and John 6. I’m simply saying that I understand how people could read metaphor into those statements. I don’t agree with it, but I do understand it. I’ll explain the John 6 element in the next post.)

FORM

Whole books have been written about what happens on the alter of a Catholic Church; books by people far more clever than I. Here we must settle for the simplest of explanations. And here we must encounter a big philosophical word: Transubstantiation.

“When they came, he looked on Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him’. But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I Have rejected him; for the Lord sees not as a man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.� 1 Samuel 16:6-7

To explain what happens to the bread and wine, we have to keep this quote from 1 Samuel closely in mind. Here we begin to see the nature of the Eucharist in its physical form. We humans see the matter of bread and wine, just as Samuel saw only the externals of David’s brothers. However, God sees the substance beyond the physical. During the consecration, the matter of the bread and wine remain the same – it is only the substance that is changed.

Philosophers will use the terms “substance� and “accidents� to describe items. Our senses can perceive the accidents, but not substance. The substance of an item is the philosophical element that transcends our senses.

When you cut into a freshly baked loaf of bread, your senses take in all its accidents. You see the whiteness. You feel the texture. You smell the aroma. You taste the peculiar flavor. All these things are the accidents of the bread. The smell is not the bread itself, but a property of the bread.

Your senses are also able to detect the accidents of the wine as well. You see the color in the chalice. You can feel the fact that it’s liquid. You smell the aroma. You taste the peculiar flavor. All these things are the accidents of the wine. The flavor and aroma are not the wine itself, but properties of the wine.

What would happen if you could, for example, remove the smell of the bread with a wave of a magic wand or a dose of some smell-removing chemical? What happens to the bread? By the removal of one (or more) of the accidents, does the bread cease to be bread? No. In substance, it is still bread. The substance does not change just because you can’t perceive the accidents.

In transubstantiation, the accidents actually remain the same as before – it is the substance is changed. The accidents retain the smell, taste, texture and color of bread and wine. But the substance behind the accidents is altered fundamentally, and in a way that our senses cannot perceive. It has literally become the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but under the accidents of bread and wine.

The revelation of Christ tells us that the substance has changed, but that the accidents remain. “This is my body…� He says this while holding what still looks like bread. “This is my blood of the covenant…� He says this while giving the apostles a cup of what still looks and tastes like wine. Surely, the gospel writers would have recorded it if the accidents had changed. But no, the accidents remained the same even then – while Christ Himself said that it “is my body�.

THE ROAD TO EMMAUS

“That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seventeen miles from Jerusalem, and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk? And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, ‘Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?’ And he said to them, What things? And they said to him, ‘Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tom early in the morning and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said hat he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.’ And he said to them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him saying, ‘Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.’ So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?’� (Luke 24:13-32)

This story is so rich in meaning that explaining it is a bit daunting. To Catholics, there is a very tight connection between our liturgy and the Bible. (Extending this statement could take a whole series of posts in itself, and I don’t want to go there just now. For the moment, we’ll confine ourselves to the Eucharistic elements of the story.)

The road to Emmaus reflects the Catholic Mass very closely. Each and every Mass is comprised of two parts: The Liturgy of the Word is followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is comprised of readings from Scripture and a homily by the presiding priest or a deacon. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is comprised of the consecration and celebration of the Eucharistic meal. It has been so for one thousand, nine hundred and seventy five years. On the Road to Emmaus we see the scriptural reflection of the Mass itself. Jesus preaches the homily when he “interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.� When he opened the Scriptures to them, their hearts burned, but they still do not understand clearly. At this point the Liturgy of the Word gives way to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. They join one another in the Eucharistic meal. The bread is blessed and broken. They saw and understood with the breaking of the bread. It was when they received the Eucharist that their eyes were opened to who He really was. They only recognized Him in the Eucharist.

Again, volumes could be written in the interpretation of the Road to Emmaus story. But for now we need to see the fact that Jesus was recognized in the bread and he immediately vanished from their sight. Christ established the Eucharist at the Last Supper. In the bread and wine He is hidden from us, but the substance of Christ goes beyond the bread and wine itself. Our remembrance of Him is to be active. It is not symbolic. His presence is real.

Let us set aside any objections or comments for now. These thoughts will not be complete until we finish with the next post. In the next post, we will examine John’s view of the Eucharist, and it is in John’s view that we see incredible depth.