Let us have a look at what the Christians of the first few centuries thought of the Eucharist. These are just a few.

St. Justin Martyr, ca. A.D. 148-155
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one 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, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made 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." First Apology – 66

St. Irenaeus, ca. A.D. 200
"The bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Against Heresies – 4, 18, 4

"He has declared the cup, a part of the creation, to be His own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Against Heresies – 5:2, 2

Tertullian, A.D. 212
"[Christ] said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh." Against Marcion – 40

Origin, after A.D. 244
“Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way, in the cloud and in the sea; now however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food, now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the Flesh of the Word of God, as He Himself says: ‘My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly drink.’� Homilies on Numbers – 7, 2

St. Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 251
“… And we ask that this bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive the Eucharist as the food of salvation, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ’s Body. … He himself warns us, saying, ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ Therefore do we ask that our Bread, which is Christ, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw His sanctification …� The Lord’s Prayer – 18

St. Ephraim, after A.D.338
“Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.� Homilies – 4, 4

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, ca. A.D.360
“Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith…� Catechetical Letters – 22 Mystagogic 4, 6

St. Hilary of Poitiers, between A.D. 356 – 359
“As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us.� The Trinity – 8, 14

Theodore of Mopsuestia, between A.D. 392 – 428
“He did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, ‘This is My Body and My Blood,’ teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into the Flesh and Blood.� Commentary on Matthew 26:26

“At first [the offering] is laid upon the altar as mere bread, and wine mixed with water; but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into the Body and the Blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.� Catechetical Homilies 16

St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 370
“Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His word be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect to the Mysteries, not looking only on what is laid out before us, but taking heed also of His words. For His word cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His word has never failed; our senses err most of the time. When the word says, ‘This is My Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind.� Homily on the Gospel of Matthew – 82, 4

St. Athanasius, before A.D. 373
"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wondrous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ...When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Sermon to the Newly Baptized

St. John Chrysostom, ca. A.D. 392
“What is the Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body. For just as the bread, consisting of many grains, is made one, and the grains are no longer evident, but still exist, though their distinction is not apparent in their conjunction; so too are we conjoined to each other and to Christ. For you are not nourished by one Body while someone else is nourished by another Body; rather, all are nourished by the same Body.� Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

St. Ambrose of Milan, A.D. 390-391
“You may perhaps say: ‘My bread is ordinary.’ But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ? By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus.� The Sacraments – 4, 4, 14

St. Augustine of Hippo, between ca. A.D. 392-418
“ ‘Unless he shall have eaten My flesh he shall not have eternal life.’ [Some] understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His body to give them. But He instructed them and said to them: ‘It is the spirit that gives life; but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. And even if it is necessary that this be celebrated visibly, it must still be understood invisibly.’� Explanations of the Psalms – 98, 9

St. Cryil of Alexandria, after A.D. 428
“He states demonstratively: ‘This is My Body,’ and ‘This is My Blood,’ lest you might suppose the things that are seen are a figure. Rather, by some secret of the all-powerful God the things seen are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ.� Commentary on Matthew

Pope Leo the Great, before A.D. 461
"For when the Lord says, ‘unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood." Sermon, 91:3

St. John Damascene, A.D. 743
“The Bread and the Wine are not a type of the Body and Blood of Christ – perish the thought! – but the deified Body Itself of the Lord, since the Lord Himself has said: ‘This is My Body.’ He did not say a type of His Body, but His Body; nor a type of His Blood, but His Blood.� The Source of Knowledge – 3, 4, 13

This concludes the series on the Eucharist.

“It is finished�, is part of John 19:30. It is here in John that we find the key to the puzzling cup in Matthew. I had always been told that this quote dealt with our redemption. As one Protestant friend once said to me long ago, “It’s the work of Christ that was finished. His work of salvation was finished on the Cross.� Ok - but - well, not really. He hadn’t been resurrected yet, so there was still something to be done (Romans 4:23-25). To my uneducated eyes, this still didn’t look quite right.

Both of these will play into our next discussion of the Eucharist, and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament. However, to join the cup from Matthew 26:39 to the phrase in John 19:30, we have to start by stepping back in time. Our first stop is in Exodus, and…

The first Passover is documented in Exodus 12.

I am not scholar of Jewish liturgical history, so I rely here on the work others for the details. (One note – the liturgical practices of modern Jews seem to differ slightly from modern practices. The Passover meal of today is somewhat altered from the time of Christ, but the basics still hold true.)

The Passover meal is divided into four parts, each separated by the drinking of a cup of wine. Before and between each cup, there are prayers and actions taken by the celebrants.

Begin with blessings; of the wine, of the festival, and in praise of God.
1- Drink from the Cup of Sanctification

Ritual washing of hands.
Green vegetables are dipped in salt water and eaten.
The unleavened bread is divided into two parts (not broken and eaten yet).
The story of Exodus – the Hebrews escape from bondage – is recited.
Psalm 113 is sung. This is known as the Little Hallel.
2- Drink from the Cup of the Wrath
(Wrath reflects God’s wrath in the plagues of Egypt)

Ritual washing of hands.
The unleavened bread is blessed, broken and distributed.
The unleavened bread is eaten.
The bitter herbs are blessed and eaten.
The roasted lamb is eaten.
Grace after the meal is said.
3- Drink from the Cup of Blessing

The whole of Psalms 115 through 118 are changed or sung. This is known as the Great Hallel.
4- Drink from the Cup of Praise

The Passover meal is finished.

Now, experts on this sort of thing say that this structure (or something roughly similar) was in place long before the time of Christ. The Gospel accounts seem to assume it, as does Paul in 1 Corinthians (more on these in a moment).

It’s also true that scripture scholars, like theologians, tend to disagree on the minutiae of the things they study. That’s fine for them – it’s what they get paid for – but this broad brush sequence should be sufficient for our purposes.

A note about the Hallels – our word Hallelujah is derived from this. Hellel means praise. The -jah on the end is short for Yahweh. Hence, Hallelujah means, simply, praise God.

Ok, so we have the basic structure of the Passover meal. Now let’s look at the Gospel accounts of that fateful Thursday night.

THE LAST SUPPER

Here is a breakdown of the synoptics and their description of the Last Supper.

Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7 – These passages clearly identify the Passover as the meal involved.

Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 - Jesus takes the bread, blesses and breaks it, and gives it to the disciples to eat.

Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, Luke 22:20 - Jesus takes the cup, gives thanks, and gives it to the disciples to drink.

Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 - Jesus says that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He drinks it anew in His Father’s kingdom.

Matthew 26: 30, Mark 14:26 - They sing a hymn.

At this point, they suddenly stop the meal and go out into the night. This is a big deal. The bread was broken and eaten, then a cup was drunk. This is followed by a hymn. The bread of the Gospel account is the same bread that is eaten before the third cup of the Passover meal. The third cup is the Cup of Blessing, which Jesus said was the cup of the new and everlasting covenant, shed for us mere mortals for the forgiveness of our sins. This is the cup that Christ passed to the apostles. The cup is followed by a hymn, which would be the Psalms of the Great Hallel.

THE CUP IN THE GARDEN

Then in Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42 and John 18:11, Jesus prays that “this cup� be taken from him. Which cup? The only logical answer is the fourth cup, the Cup of Consummation, the final act of the Passover meal. This is the final cup of the meal, the one that was left when Jesus and the apostles went out into the night.

Paul makes the connection as well. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul calls it "the cup of blessing". This reflects the Cup of Blessing in the Passover meal. The same Cup of Blessing that Christ himself calls the Cup of the New and Everlasting Covenant. In fact, he says that it is the “Cup of Blessing which we bless,� and goes on to say that it is a participation in the Blood of Christ.

Christ was living the Passover. “Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.� The Lamb is sacrificed - it must be consumed. The blood of blessing, which we bless, is the Blood of the Covenant.

It was Christ’s transformation of the Passover sacrifice of the Old Covenant into the Eucharistic sacrifice of the New Covenant that was finished. The Passover sacrifice of the New Covenant began in the upper room with the institution of the Eucharist. It was completed at Calvary. As Scott Hahn has said: “Calvary begins with the Eucharist and the Eucharist ends with Calvary. It is all of one piece.�

Christ’s Passover is a true sacrifice (1 Corinthians 5:7). It is a true meal (John 6:55). It is a true covenant between God and humanity (Matthew 26:28). It goes on eternally.

“Jesus made it abundantly clear in this context that eternal life is gained by believing. 6:50-51 is a synonym for believing.� Parallel Study Bible

“v53 precludes direct reference to the Lord’s Supper. He clearly does not teach that receiving the sacrament is one requirement for salvation.� Zondervan NASB Study Bible

“v52 – Jesus was speaking figuratively, but the Jewish leaders took him literally.� NKJV Study Bible

“v53 – Apart from personal union with the Savior, there is no salvation.� Reformation Study Bible.

“Christ declared the metaphor Himself in verse 63.� – 2006 online conversation

“It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. ‘Will you also go away?’ The Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has ‘the words of eternal life’ and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.� Catechism of the Catholic Church (1336)

Today we look at the Gospel of John, chapter 6. This is so important that we’ll spend most of this post in this one chapter.

One technical note: I’m not going to quote all of John 6 here. Why? Simple, to save space – this is going to be painfully long as it is. I’ll leave each of you to get a Bible and read the text yourself. Though there will be bits and pieces quoted below, I suggest that everyone read the text before getting started. Once you’re done, continue and we’ll start to break open The Word.

In addition, you’ll notice some Greek in the middle of this post. It is a small part of John 6 (verses 47 through 59 to be exact). Don’t panic! It’s there for a reason, and we’ll get into the specifics later.

Sit back and relax, this is going to be a bit long.

The first thing we need to do is set John 6 in context. This is done in two ways. First, is the context of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The second step is to look at the immediate context within John 6 itself.

Matthew, Mark and Luke all recount the establishment of the Eucharist. This is discussed in detail in this post. When Christ said, “do this in remembrance of me�, he intended something active, not a simple act of passive memory. He said, “this is my body�, not "this is like my body", or "this is reminiscent of my body�. THIS IS. Keep these things in mind as we go through John 6.

The immediate context is set out at the beginning of the chapter. The first part deals with the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (v 1-14). After Christ feeds the “multitude�, he sets crosses the sea on foot (v 15-24). In this second case, not only does he walk on the water, but also they cross the sea “immediately�.

This immediate context is vital. John is stressing the fact that his followers had seen some impressive miracles in the previous 24 hours. The feeding of the multitude, the walking on water and the immediate crossing of the sea, all would have been fresh in the minds of those that heard what follows – the Bread of Life Discourse. Keep this closely in mind as you read through the rest of this post.

IT’S ALL GREEK TO ME

The quotes from Protestant study Bibles above stress metaphor and symbolism. They don’t see Christ’s words as literally true. However, you simply cannot get metaphorical or symbolic language out of the original Greek. Here are the details.

First, look at verse 27. The RSV translates this as “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you…� What we want to focus on now is the verb “endures�.

What happens to food that’s left out? Eventually, it will rot or be eaten by bugs. It spoils rather than endures. The Greek word used in verse 27 is μενουσαν (men-OU-san, which is a form of μενω (me-NO)). This is a very old word. In fact, my Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon calls it a “primitive verb�. The use of this word is specific and very pointed. It gives no sense or connotation of change. In this sense, it is permanent in the absolute. Christ is speaking of food that endures in the same sense that he speaks of life that is eternal. The food to which He refers – very specifically – will last forever.

However, we’re not done with μενω. It is a word with multiple meanings, and John loads it with theological heft. This is found in verse 56 as well, where it means, “abide�. My Arndt & Gingrich says, “remain, last, persist, continue to live, abide in.� John uses all these meanings. In John 6:56, he who eats His flesh abides-lives-remains in Him and He in them. In John 14:10, the Father abides-remains-lives in the Son. In John 1:32, the Spirit remained-lived-abided in Jesus. In John 15:4, believers abide-live-remain in Him and He in them.

The use of meno in these cases indicates an abiding presence that endures with us unchanged forever. It fits well with Matthew 28:20, where Christ says that he is with us always.

Now, let’s go a bit further and look at verses 47-59. This section is recreated in Greek below. I’ll highlight the important words, so you won’t have to learn Greek.

John 6:47-59

47 Αμήν αμήν λέγω Ï?μίν, ÏŒ πιστεÏ?ων εχει ζωήν αιωνιον.

48 εγω ειμι ÏŒ αÏ?τος της ζωης.

49 όι πατέÏ?ες Ï?μων εφαγον εν τή˛ εÏ?ήμω˛ το μαννα καί απεθανον.

50 οÏ?τός εστιν ÏŒ αÏ?τος ÏŒ εκ του ουÏ?ανου καταβαίνων, ίνα τις εξ αυτου φαγη˛ και μή αποθανη˛ .

51 εγώ ειμι ÏŒ αÏ?τος ÏŒ ζων ÏŒ εκ του ουÏ?ανου καταβάς. εαν τις φαγη˛ εκ τοÏ?του του αÏ?του ζησει εις τον αιωνα, και ÏŒ αÏ?τος δέ όν εγω δωσω ή σαÏ?ξ μου εστιν Ï?πεÏ? της του κόσμου ζωης.

52 Εμάχοντο ουν Ï€Ï?ος αλλήλους όι Ιουδαιοι λεγοντες, Πως δυναται οÏ?τος ήμιν δουναι τήν σάÏ?κα αυτου φαγειν;

53 ειπεν ουν αυτοις ÏŒ Ιησους, Αμην αμην λεγω Ï?μιν εαν μη φαγητε την σαÏ?κα του υίου του ανθÏ?ώπου και πιητε αυτου το αίμα, ουκ εχετε ζωην εν έαυτοις.

54 ÏŒ Ï„Ï?ωγων μου την σαÏ?κα και πινων μου το αίμα εχει ζωην αιωνιον καγω αναστησω αυτον μου το αίμα εχει ζωην αιωνιον, καγο αναστησω αυτον τα˛ εσχατη˛ αμεÏ?α˛.

55 ή γαÏ? σαÏ?ξ μου αληθής εστιν βÏ?ωσις, και το αίμα μου αληθής εστιν πόσις.

56 ÏŒ Ï„Ï?ωγων μου την σαÏ?κα και πινων μου το αίμα εν εμοι μενει καγω εν αυτω˛.

57 καθως απεστειλεν με ÏŒ ζων πατηÏ? καγω ζω δια τον πατεÏ?α, και ÏŒ Ï„Ï?ωγων με κακεινος ζησει δι εμε.

58 οÏ?τος εστιν ÏŒ αÏ?τος ÏŒ εξ ουÏ?ανου καταβας, ου καθως εφαγον οί πατεÏ?ες και απεθανον, ÏŒ Ï„Ï?ωγων τουτον τον αÏ?τον ζησει εις τον αιωνα.

59 ταυτα ειπεν εν συναγωγη˛ διδασκων εν ΚαφαÏ?ναοÏ?μ.

The words highlighted in blue are forms of the verb φαγω (pronounced: PHA-go). Phago is the word for “eat�. Phago (and its root word esthio) appears in the New Testament 162 times in 145 verses. In the New Testament, phago and esthio are the most common words used for anything to do with eating.

The words highlighted in green are forms of the verb Ï„Ï?ωγω (pronounced: TRO-go). Trogo is different. Trogo means to chew, or gnaw, as an animal would trogo a bone. Trogo is used in classical Greek literature to describe the eating habits of animals like pigs. It is not used to describe the eating habits of human beings. Trogo is used only six times in six verses, so relative to phago/esthio it is very rare. (The other verses where trogo is use are Matthew 24:38 and John 13:18. In each case, trogo is used for emphasis.)

Now, look at your own Bible and consider this. Through verse 53 (inclusive), Jesus says that we are to eat his flesh. However, those that heard him said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?� They didn’t understand. Jesus doesn’t back down. He doesn’t explain that they have misunderstood him. Instead, He raises the stakes. Beginning in verse 54, He suddenly changes the verb to the word for chew or gnaw or crunch. Those that chew his flesh and drink his blood have eternal life. This really was a “hard saying�, and under this translation, “who can listen to it� (v 60) is a natural reaction. Christ is deliberately using the most base meaning to emphasize his intent – THIS IS his flesh. He drives this point home more solidly with the change of verb from the common word, phago, to the uncommon and rather crude word, trogo.

Far from being symbolic language, trogo is graphic and is intended to add force. Christ is demanding that we express our faith by physically eating His life-giving flesh in a sacramental way.

STRONG’S

I have a copy of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance at my house. It’s basically an index to the King James Version of the Bible. In the back of the concordance is a short Greek lexicon. Each entry in the concordance itself has a “Strong’s Number� listed next to it, and that number refers to a Greek word in the lexicon. The listing for phago is 5315.

One person I encountered told me that my analysis of the Greek words phago and trogo are wrong. She reasoned this because of the Strong’s lexicon.

Strong’s listing for “eat� has only two New Testament entries in the lexicon – phago and esthio (keep in mind that phago is the only one used in John 6, and hence more important for our discussion here). Even the verses in John 6 that have trogo in the original text are marked with phago in the concordance. To look at Strong’s, it would appear that trogo doesn’t exist in the New Testament. However…

Strong’s also lists trogo as number 5176. The problem is this - Strong’s doesn’t list a use for this word - EVER. Why have it in the lexicon at all if it doesn’t appear in the New Testament at all?

It’s very simple: Strong’s is in error.

(In fairness, it should be pointed out that Strong’s lexicon is only 79 pages long. My Arndt & Gingrich weighs in at 900 pages. You can get a wee bit more detail in 900 pages than you can in 79.)

JOHN 6:63

“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.�

This is the passage that most Protestants use to claim that Christ spoke metaphorically in every other verse of John 6. Theoretically, it is this verse that undermines the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, this begs several questions.

First, what flesh is He referring to? In verse 52, He said that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man we have no life in us. In verse 54, He says that if we eat his flesh we have eternal life. In verse 57, if we eat Him in the Eucharist, we live because of Him. In verse 58, if we eat this bread, we live forever. Is Jesus Christ contradicting Himself? Why would He tell us that there was value in eating his flesh, then turn around and tell us that there’s no value in it?

He is not contradicting himself. He is, in fact, speaking in a very specific way. Let’s break down verse 63 in some detail.

It is the spirit that gives life…

What spirit gives life?

All life comes from God, and it is specifically the Spirit that gives life (Genesis 2:7). When Christ tells us that it is the spirit that gives life in verse 63, He is speaking of the Holy Spirit. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end.

…the flesh is of no avail…

Man is God’s creation. We have nothing to offer that can compare to what Jesus is offering for our redemption and salvation. We cannot, under any circumstances, work out our own salvation. There is no salvation through human flesh. The “flesh� Jesus refers to in verse 63 is the flesh of man, the daily physical existence of humanity. It is through His glorified flesh and His glorified blood made present by the power of the Holy Spirit that our souls will be nourished and will receive life. Human flesh is of no avail, but His flesh glorified in the Spirit leads to eternal life.

…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

It's absolutely true that his words are spirit and life. But what words? This applies to ALL the words of John 6, not just those in verse 63 and not just His words in other parts of the New Testament. Those that deal with the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man are spirit and life as well as all the others. It's not just believing in the words of God that's important, it's also doing what they say.

When we receive Christ in the Eucharist, we receive all the glorified, resurrected Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is the “flesh� that gives life. We cannot fully understand this miracle without the power of the Holy Spirit acting in our lives.

1ST CORINTHIANS 11:27-29

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup 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.�

Above is from the RSV. The KJV is a bit more bluntly: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself…�

So, if you eat the of the bread and drink of the cup – without considering the consequences and without discerning the reality – you eat and drink judgment or damnation upon yourself. This idea fits perfectly if, as stated above in the Greek section, you accept that Christ intended us to eat his body and drink his blood under the appearance of bread and wine. However, the quote above from 1st Corinthians becomes meaningless if we look at the bread of John 6 as metaphor or symbol. Is it possible that you could drink judgment or condemnation upon yourself for failing to discern a metaphor? If God intended the Real Presence in the Eucharist as opposed to a symbolic presense, then Paul’s admonition in 1st Corinthians makes perfect sense.

DEPARTURES?

John 6:66 is the only occasion when disciples depart from Christ. Not only do they leave, but they leave in large numbers. But there are some of you who do not believe. To me, these words carry a note deep sorrow. Jesus knew from the outset that some would find this teaching too hard. He knew, in his divine nature, that the hardness of this teaching would last to the present day.

This is the critical point of the text. It is obvious that the crowd believed Jesus was speaking literally. They didn’t hear metaphor. The crucial point is that when they walked away Jesus didn’t stop them. They walked away the day after they saw Him multiply loaves and fishes to feed the multitude. If He meant the bread of life to be metaphor, He would have stopped them and explained what he really meant. In fact, he would have been morally obligated to stop them and correct their understanding.

If he was speaking symbolically, why didn’t he stop the departing disciples and correct them?

IT IS REAL

The bread of life is literally the Bread of Life. Those that eat it have life in them. His words are indeed spirit and life, and His words say that we should eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.

NEXT – “It is finished…�

In this post, we will examine both the establishment of the Eucharist and its earthly form.

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.

We Catholics take 2 Timothy 3:16 very much to heart. “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.� The key here is the all Scripture part. To look at what the New Testament says is fine, but we need to look at all the Scriptures to get a good foundation for the Eucharist. Therefore, our first stop will be deeper in the past, in the Old Testament.

Thusly we begin…

We will start our exploration with the very first Passover. It is here that the first rules of sacrifice are given to the people of Israel. It’s also a convenient place to start, as most people have heard the story of the first Passover (or at least seen Charlton Heston and Yul Brenner in the movie version).

A few days before the first Passover, Moses and the Israelites are told how to avoid the fate of the first born of Egypt.

Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household; and if the household is too small for a lamb, then a man and his neighbor next to his house shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats; and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until morning you shall burn.�

What we want to focus on the nature of the sacrifice and what has to be done with it. This is the first paschal sacrifice. The sacrifice is a lamb, an unblemished lamb, which is then eaten. If the family isn’t big enough to eat the entire lamb, then neighbors are brought in to help eat the flesh. God Himself commands that the flesh of the lamb be eaten.

Not only is the Passover the most significant sacrifice for the Israelites, it’s also the only sacrifice that God commands to be perpetual. This is specifically commanded more than once. In Exodus 12:14 we read, “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever.� This is also repeated in verse 24, “You shall observe this rite as an ordinance for you and your sons for ever.� And in a slightly different form in verse 17, “And you shall observe the feast of unleavened bread, for on this very day, throughout your generations, as an ordinance for ever.� The point is therefore driven home: The paschal sacrifice is perpetual.

When God’s people were freed from Egypt, they went to the foot of Mount Sinai and waited. They waited long enough that they started grumbling. Finally, growing ever more impatient, they crafted a golden calf and began worshipping it. In time, God turned this evil into good, and that good took the form of animal sacrifice. The animals for these sacrifices were related to the Egyptian gods. The creatures that people had once sacrificed to in Egypt became the Israelites’ sacrificial animals. (Among other things, the Egyptian pantheon included Apis the bull, Banebdjedet the ram, Hathor the cow; there were birds, cats, jackels, and a wide assortment of other animals.)

Animals were sacrificed for a variety of reasons. Some were sacrificed for sin offerings, some for peace offerings, some for thanksgiving. The book of Leviticus sets out the rules for these sacrificial offerings. “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any until the morning.� (Lev. 7:5) It was absolutely required that the sacrifice be eaten as well: “Now Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and behold it was burned! And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying, “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.� (Lev. 10:16-18)

One last example is Exodus 29:31-34. “You shall take the ram of ordination, and boil its flesh in a holy place; and Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram and the bread that is in the basket, at the door of the tent of meeting. They shall eat those things with which atonement was made, to ordain and consecrate them, but an outsider shall not eat of them, because they are holy. And if any of the flesh for the ordination, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is holy.�

THE PURE OFFERING

“For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts.� (Malachi 1:11)

This passage from Malachi was written some 400 years before Christ. In that time, the name of the God of Israel was not “great among the nations.� There were no offerings made “from the rising of the sun to its setting.� This is, therefore, a prophesy of things to come. It speaks of a pure offering – grammatically singular – made all over the world. And there was only one truly “pure� offering ever made to God – Jesus Christ on the Cross.

BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD

All these things point to a specific idea: Righteous sacrifices in the Old Testament had to be consumed. The Paschal Lamb, as a sacrifice, had to be consumed as well.

In the text above, we see that the Passover was the only perpetual sacrifice imposed upon the Israelites. Not a bone of the Paschal Lamb was to be broken. The Paschal Lamb had to be without blemish – in fact, the lamb itself is a symbol of innocence. And most importantly for our discussion – the Paschal Lamb had to be consumed.

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29). He is without blemish (1 Peter 1:18-19, Hebrews 7:26). His sacrifice is perpetual (Revelation 5:6-10). Even after the horrors of the scourging and crucifixion, not a bone of His was broken (John 19:36). Jesus Christ is our Paschal Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). Our Paschal Lamb must be consumed (John 6).

The Mosaic covenant was consummated in Exodus 24:9-11. The elders of Israel, with Moses and Aaron, went up the mountain to sit in the presence of God. They ate and drank, and the old covenant was sealed in this meal. The eternal New Covenant is also sealed with a meal; every day, from the rising of the sun to its setting – every hour or every day– the Eucharistic meal is celebrated in Catholic Churches the world over. This Eucharistic meal is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine – just as Isaiah 45:15 hints – but it is, nonetheless, the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

In the next installment, we will look at the establishment and form of the Eucharist.

Part 2 - Establishment and Form

Thusly we begin...

“In seminary we learned that the major difference between Catholics and Protestants is that the Catholic Church believes that salvation comes through the sacraments and we do not. BTW, to the Catholics on the forum -- I'm not anti-Catholic. I'm just stating facts.�

The Sacraments are often a source of great misunderstanding between Catholics and Protestants. The statement above is a perfect example. On the face of it, there is a degree of truth there, and some Catholics would be tempted to explain the Sacraments in just such a way. The problem lies in the lack of depth (and Catholics can, at times, be just as guilty of this shallow view as Protestants). You simply can’t say that salvation comes through the Sacraments without explanation. Unfortunately, Protestant hearing often shuts down about now, and this shutdown is completely understandable. It’s caused by the idea that salvation is coming from something other than Jesus Christ. Protestants bristle. Catholics bristle back. Temptations to relive the Thirty Years War run rampant.

This ground is ripe with opportunity for heated misunderstanding.

If there is any genuine desire to understand what we Catholics believe, then exploring the depth of the Sacraments isn’t just a good idea, it’s absolutely necessary. (If there isn’t a genuine desire to understand, then feel free to stop reading now.)

A STARTING POINT

Let’s begin by being clear and blunt: Catholics believe that we are saved by the grace of God. This grace is made available to us through the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Period. (As in Ephesians 2:8)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

Before we go any further, I want to introduce a passage from the Gospel according to Luke:

“And there was a certain woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had bestowed all her substance on physicians, and could not be healed by any. She came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment; and immediately the issue of her blood stopped. And Jesus said: Who is it that touched me? And all denying, Peter and they that were with him said: Master, the multitudes throng and press thee, and dost thou say, Who touched me? And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace. � Luke 8:43-48 (Douay-Rheims Bible). Parallel texts in Matthew 9:20-22 & Mark 5:25-34

We need to look at how this beautiful passage works in the Catholic view of the Sacraments. But before we can do that, we need to set this Lucan passage in context.

“The woman that hath an issue of blood many days out of her ordinary time, or that ceaseth not to flow after the monthly courses, as long as she is subject to this disease, shall be unclean, in the same manner as if she were in her flowers. Every bed on which she sleepeth, and every vessel on which she sitteth, shall be defiled. Whosoever toucheth them shall wash his clothes: and himself being washed with water, shall be unclean until the evening.� Leviticus 15:25-26 (Douay-Rheims Bible)

“For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats of it shall be cut off.� Leviticus 17:14 (RSV-CE)

By Jewish standards of the day, the woman in Luke 8:43-48 was ritually unclean. The blood that flowed from her was the life of her flesh. Her life was draining away. She comes to Christ in search of healing. She reaches out to him in faith, and she is healed. In fact, in this translation He declares her whole – not just “healed�, but whole – and bids her go in peace. Just as the woman in the Scripture reaches out to him to be made whole, so must we. It is in this way that we reach out to Him in the Sacraments; we do so because of our uncleanness, we seek to be made whole and healed, we do these things in faith. There is a subtle beauty in this.

The seven sacraments flow directly from Jesus Christ. Without Christ, the Sacraments would be of no value at all. Just as virtue (or power, depending on the translation) flowed through the hem of His garment to make the woman whole, so Christ’s power and grace flow through the Sacraments to make us whole.

BIBLICAL PHYSICALITY

Protestants that have made it this far may be asking, “Why would God make up a system that requires physical matter to distribute grace?� Fair question.

The answer is found in Scripture.

There are plenty of examples in Scripture of Jesus using physical matter to perform miracles. Space and time do not allow me to include them all. Here are two quick examples: “And when he was come to the house, the blind men came to him. And Jesus saith to them, Do you believe, that I can do this unto you? They say to him, Yea, Lord. Then he touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith, be it done unto you. And their eyes were opened, and Jesus strictly charged them, saying, See that no man know this. � (Matthew 9:28-30 DRB). Another example: “As he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.� (John 9:6-7 RSV-CE).

There are plenty of other examples: Matthew 8:2, Matthew 8:14-15, Matthew 9:20-22, Matthew 9:24-25, Matthew 17:27, Mark 1:40-41, Mark 1:30-31, Mark 5:27-34, Mark 5:40-42, Mark 7:33-35, Mark 8:22-26, Mark 9:26-27, Luke 5:13, Luke 7:13-15, Luke 8:43-48, Luke 8:53-55, Luke 13:12-13, Luke 14:2-4.

Why use spit? Why make clay? Why use physicality at all?

Why use so many physical means to accomplish His goals when He could have done it at the turn of His will? The simple fact is that in some way it pleased Him to do so.

"But wait," someone shouts from the bleachers, "He did these things to prove His point. He did them to give visible proof to doubting mortals.� Not always. The text of Mark 7:33-35 specifically notes that the miracle is performed in private. And there are other points, such as Matthew 9:28-30 quoted above, where He told his followers not to tell anyone of His actions. If this were to prove a point visibly and publicly, why request that no one be told, and why perform miracles in private?

WHAT IS A SACRAMENT?

Three elements make a Sacrament. First, there has to be an outward sign perceptible to our senses. This can be an object or a spoken word. Second, there must be grace that accomplishes what is signified. For example, the water of baptism signifies cleansing, and the grace of baptism cleanses our souls of original sin. Most importantly, it must have been instituted by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. Without the institution by God Himself, it would be meaningless.

Specifics will have to wait until we get to the individual posts on each of the Sacraments. We’ll leave this for the moment, but a brief detour into etymology might prove interesting.

WHAT DOES A SACRAMENT DO?

The Sacraments infuse the soul with sanctifying grace. It’s that simple. (There may also be an effect on the soul of the recipient as well. The grace may consecrate a soul to a particular kind of life, as in marriage or the taking of religious orders.) I’d like to re-quote something here by Frank Sheed. This cuts to the heart of the matter:

“When we come to die there is only one question that matters -- Have we sanctifying grace in our souls? If we have, then to heaven we shall go. There may be certain matters to be cleared, or cleansed, on the way, but to heaven we shall go, for we have the power to live there. If we have not, then to heaven we cannot go; not because we lack the price of admission, but because quite simply our soul lacks the powers that living in heaven calls for.

“It is not a question of getting past the gate, but of living once we are there; there would be no advantage in finding a kindly gate keeper, willing to let us in anyhow. The powers of intellect and will that go with our natural life are not sufficient; heaven calls for powers of knowing and loving higher than our nature of itself has. We need supernatural life, and we must get it here upon the earth. To die lacking it means eternal failure." - Theology for Beginners

OBJECTIONS

There are, of course, a whole host of objections to each Sacrament. One person declared, “I can think of at least three people in the Bible that went to heaven without the Sacraments.� My response was, “ok, I agree�. She blinked several times, thinking that I was trying to trick her.

Enoch was assumed into heaven long before John the Baptist started baptizing. The good thief was saved without a drop of baptismal water in sight. There is no scandal here. We fully acknowledge that Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their faith, aspirations and prayers. He can do these things without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This has always been possible. This will always be possible.

The Sacraments are a means, provided by God Himself, by which we may reach out to him. The Sacraments are like a spring from which flows God's grace. We may sip at the spring, or drink deeply, or ignore it entirely. But these actions are our choice.

Comments are open, but let us not get too sidetracked on objections just yet. The details will come and objections will be welcome at that point. Specific questions will have to wait until we get to the specific posts. This is, after all, only an introduction. Be patient.