The Eucharist

Is Christ sacrificed repeatedly? Absolutely not. Catholics heartily affirm that Christ died once and for all (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). The event of Christ's passion and crucifixion was a single event in history, HOWEVER, I think everyone would agree that the effects of Christ's crucifixion are felt today. In the very same way, Christ's sacrifice continues eternally now for us. He always is making intercession for us as the Messiah - He is not bound by the constraints of time and history. Therefore, it is in the Mass that the sacrifice of Christ is RE-presented. It is by no means a new sacrifice, but it is the re-presentation of Christ's one-time sacrifice from which Catholics (and non-Catholics) benefit. You can't repeat something that has no end. Looking at Malachi 1:11 we see that the sacrifice of Jesus was foretold as a continuous one pure offering:

"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts."

In other words, it is by Christ's continuous intercession for us that we are able to obtain forgiveness for our past, present and future sins. For example, Christ died around 30 A.D., but you and I were born in the 20th Century. Since Christ died "once and for all" almost two thousand years before we were even born, does this mean we can't have forgiveness of our sins? Of course not - Christ's sacrifice transcends time and space. It is only when the Second Coming is complete that Christ's sacrifice will be over.

Now, some non-Catholics deny that Jesus becomes fully present in the bread and wine, thus making the wafer an "idol". Let's see what the Bible has to say about it: At least 8 times in John chapter 6 Jesus says he is the bread of life (Jn 6:27, 32, 33, 35, 48, 50, 51, 58) and at least 7 times he tells his disciples to eat the Bread of Life (Jn 6:50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58). However, when Jesus told them this, "“The Jews murmured about him..." (Jn 6:41), but Jesus makes it very clear, saying "For my flesh is TRUE FOOD, and my blood is TRUE DRINK. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him”( John 6:55-56)

“Then, many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’ Jesus makes no attempt to say He was speaking metaphorically, but only asks, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” (John 6:61-62)

“As a result of this, many of His disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him”

Jesus again doesn’t explain that He was only speaking metaphorically, but only turns to the 12 Apostles and asks, “Do you also want to leave?” (John 6:67) In other words, Jesus makes absolutely no attempt to say that he was speaking only symbolically, and even allows his disciples to leave him because of what he said. Can you find another episode in the Bible where the followers of Jesus left him because of a doctrinal disagreement?

This belief is shared by Paul, who wrote, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor.10:16), and to emphasize the Real Presence of Christ he wrote, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). In the language of the time, being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord is to be guilty of murder. How can it be murder if the wafer is merely symbolic, as our Protestant brethren are prone to believe?

As further proof that Jesus couldn't be speaking symbolically, "eat my flesh" means to cause serious physical or emotional harm: for example:

"you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron." (Micah 3:2-3)

"They shall stumble over one another, as if to escape a sword, though none pursues; and you shall have no power to stand before your enemies. And you shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up." (Lev 26:37-38)

"...for they have eaten up Jacob, and devoured him, and consumed him, and have made his habitation desolate." (Jer 10:25)

"When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall." (Psalm 27:2)

"Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land is burned, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother. They snatch on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours his neighbor's flesh" (Is 9:18-20).

So we see that the symbolic interpretation of John 6 doesn't make sense at all.

Note also that The Apostles continued this tradition: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers” (Acts 2:42)

“Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes” (Acts 2:46)

“On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread….” (Acts 20:7)

So we've seen that the Apostles accepted Jesus' teaching (Acts 2:42, 2:46, 20:7), we've seen that Paul specifically reiterates this fact to the Corinthians (1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:27). Now you should see how the Protestant opinion is not shared by those early Christians immediately after the lifetime of Christ:

Irenaeus of Lyons
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, 'This is my body.' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: 'You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord Almighty' [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5).

Cyprian of Carthage
"If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ" (Letters 63:14).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need" (Catechetical Lectures 23:7-8).

So, Catholics believe that there is strong scriptural evidence for believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, backed up by the writings of the early Christians - a practice continued for nearly 2000 years now. The non-Catholic objector may quote Rom 6:16-23, with which Catholic firmly agree. Note it says "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life." Truly, it is by the one-time sacrifice of Christ that we obtain sanctification and its end, eternal life, made possible because Christ's sacrifice transcends all time, as it says in Hebrews "Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh (the Eucharist)" (Heb 3:19-20). It is in this everlasting sacrifice that Catholics participate in, in the liturgy of the Mass, and since there is strong biblical evidence that Christ is truly present, the wafer is most certainly not worshipped as an idol, but it is the true presence of Christ that is worshipped.

If non-Catholics can accept the mind-bending idea that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, that He was born without sin to a virgin Mary, performed miracles and walked on water, rose from the dead on the third day, etc., why is it then not unreasonable to accept that it is within Jesus' power to become present in bread and wine?

---