The Sacrament of Communion

Communion - What is it?

Communion is the part during mass where the essence of the bread and wine are supernaturally transformed into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ while keeping the physical accidents (properties recognizable by the senses) as bread and wine. As United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states,

https://www.usccb.org/eucharist

"In the celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of the priest. The whole Christ is truly present -- body, blood, soul, and divinity -- under the appearances (accidents) of bread and wine, the glorified Christ who rose from the dead. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the 'Real Presence' of Christ in the Eucharist."

The Eucharist is where the title "The Sacrifice of the Mass" comes from. While Christ is not re-sacrificed every mass, the Eucharist is a re-presentation of what has already been sacrificed once and for all for our sins: Jesus Christ. Furthermore, "the Lord's table" in 1 Corinthians 10:14-21 is a reference to the Old Testament altar where sacrifices were done (Malachi 1:7).

The Eucharist is also necessary for salvation as stated by Christ:

John 6:51-59

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.' This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um."

And as stated in the Catechism,

CCC 1322

"The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist."

At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'" (CCC 1322; 1323)

So, similar to how Abel's blood cried out for justice in Genesis 4:9-10, Christ's blood brings the forgiveness of sins for all people (Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 2:2).

The Eucharist in the Bible - Typology

The doctrines surrounding the Eucharist can be found in Scripture. Examples such as transubstantiation (Matthew 26:26), not receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin (1 Corinthians 11:27), and the mass being called "the Supper of the Lamb" (Revelation 19:9) are all deeply rooted in the Bible. However, there is even more evidence to be found when studying the typology.

Even in the Garden of Eden we find types that point to this sacrament. Just as the fruit on the tree of life in garden was said to give eternal life in Gen 3:22, so does Jesus (who was sacrificed on a tree [Galatians 3]) do the same in Matthew 26:26-28. And just as Adam and Eve were prevented to eat of the fruit after falling into sin (Gen 3:22-24), so should somebody not be able to participate in the Eucharist if they have done the same (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Going a bit further in history, we can take a look at the priest Melchizedek, who was called the "king of righteousness". Jesus fulfilled this in 1 Corinthians 1:30. Furthermore, Melchizedek was the priest of God in the Old Testament (Genesis 14:18), but Christ was the eternal high priest (Hebrew 6:20) in the New Testament. It is all brought together when in Genesis 14:18 the high priest Melchizedek offers bread and wine in thanksgiving of being delivered from captivity, and Jesus offers his body and blood as deliverance from our sins.

In Matthew it says,

Matthew 12:1-7

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, 'Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.' He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.'"

The Bread of the Presence greatly foreshadows the holy Eucharist. This bread was meant to be a symbol of the Glory Cloud in the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:30-35) and in the first Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:8-11). The Eucharist is also held in what's called a "tabernacle" when not used during mass. This Bread of the Presence was accompanied by wine as seen in Exodus 25, but it was also meant to be a sign of a new covenant. This greatly parallels Christ's statements on his blood being the new covenant (Luke 22:19-20). Lastly, just as the Bread of the Presence was to be placed on the Sabbath (Leviticus 24:7-9) so is mass to be said on Sundays.

The Eucharist greatly parallels the manna in Exodus:

Exodus 16:1-5

"'The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt. In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, 'If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.'

Then the Lord said to Moses, 'I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days.'"

This manna was from heaven and meant to give life to the starving Israelites. Christ then became the new manna when he came down from heaven (John 6:33) and gave life through the sacrament of communion.

Perhaps the most common typological observation is Christ being called the "Lamb of God" in comparison with the Passover Lamb. This Passover Lamb could only be eaten by those who were circumcised under the Old Covenant (Exodus 12:48). However, Christ fulfilled this when he instituted his body and blood as the new covenant. The Passover Lamb delivered those from death in Exodus 12:12-13, similar to Christ's promise in John 6:51.

The Eucharist in the Bible - Just a Metaphor?

The institution of the Eucharist is a pivotal point in the New Testament. After all, the Eucharist is called the "source and summit" of our faith. Consequently, Protestants have taken all of the statements surrounding the Eucharist to be merely symbolic or analogical in nature. I will now show why Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively.

One thing we have to understand is that when Jesus is misunderstood, He clarifies for those who didn't understand. A few examples are John 3:3-5 when Nicodemus misunderstands Baptism with a physical birth and Jesus reminds him he is talking about "water and the Spirit", John 11:11-16 when the disciples confuse sleep with death, or even John 10:1-10 when the Pharisees don't understand why He was called the "gate".

Had Jesus been speaking figuratively here, He would have made sure to not let others be misled. After all, he was meant to be a perfect role model for others (1 Corinthians 11:1). However, we don't see Jesus clarify his seemingly figurative language, but rather doubles down multiple times. John 6:41 shows the Jews grumble at what He says, John 6:52 shows them begin to argue, John 6:60 the disciples are troubled by His words, and in John 6:66 shows many disciples leave. Every single time, after these verses, Jesus doubles down and says that He is the bread of life and we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He makes it abundantly clear.

The One Sacrifice

The Jewish roots of the Eucharist are obvious, but many Protestants will object to one doctrine in Catholicism: The Sacrifice of the Mass. Why? Because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient (and we agree) thus no other sacrifice is necessary. The problem with this is that the Eucharist is part of Christ's sacrifice; it completes it.

Many of the sacrifices in the Old Testaments were ones that needed to be eaten directly after the animal was slain. An example of this would be the one in Leviticus 7:

Leviticus 7:14-15; 18

"They are to bring one of each kind as an offering, a contribution to the Lord; it belongs to the priest who splashes the blood of the fellowship offering against the altar. The meat of their fellowship offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day it is offered; they must leave none of it till morning.
... (skip v. 16-17)
If any meat of the fellowship offering is eaten on the third day, the one who offered it will not be accepted. It will not be reckoned to their credit, for it has become impure; the person who eats any of it will be held responsible."

You can find more examples of this practice in 1 Samuel 2:13-17, Deuteronomy 18:1-8, Numbers 18:8-11, and Leviticus 6:19, 29; 21:22. The consumption of the sacrifice wasn't a different sacrifice, it just completed the sacrificial ritual. In fact, if it wasn't eaten, the sacrifice was viewed as an abomination as described in verse 18. This isn't the only instance of this happening. Another example is 14 and 15 Nisan:

Exodus 12:6-8

"Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast."

The first day was called 14 Nisan and was a Preparation day. Here the people were required to slay the paschal sacrifice and then eat it on the second day, 15 Nisan (called the Passover meal). This makes the Eucharist seem even more clear when Paul calls Christ our, "Paschal Lamb" (1 Corinthians 5:7). So let's look at it more organized:

The Passover Sacrifice
1. The slaying of the sacrifice (Ex. 12:6).
2. The consumption of the sacrifice (Ex. 12:8-9).

Christ's Sacrifice
1. The slaying of the sacrifice (John 19:17-18)
2. The consumption of the sacrifice (John 6:49-51).

Ultimately, this is what brings the Eucharist together. The Passover sacrifice was literally slain and eaten. Christ, the new Passover, was literally slain and literally eaten. Why should we simply take the second part of Christ's sacrifice as symbolic and leave the rest as literal?

Paul's reference to Christ being the Paschal Lamb is purposeful. Christ's death was a real sacrifice and, just like the old Passover meal, we must partake in the Holy Eucharist, in which Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

It should be noted that many Protestants say Christ's death on the cross is all we need because Christ stated, "It is finished" (John 19:30). But Paul noted that:

1 Corinthians 15:17

"And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins."

Christ's death wasn't enough, he had to rise again according to Paul. So Christ wasn't talking about his sacrifice being over, he was most likely talking about the end of the Old Covenant.

Ancient Greece/Rome - Sacrifices

With the Eucharist now established as part of Christ’s sacrifice, it’s important now to delve into other Eucharistic texts. Specifically, those in Paul’s letters are perhaps the most clear. Before jumping into this verse, we need to get some contextual background.

In the first-century Graeco-Roman world almost everything was done in a cultic or religious fashion or at least was, in some way, tied to pagan beliefs. Thus, it was very often for cities like Corinth to have temples making animal sacrifices, blood libations, and food sacrifices to various gods. As a result, there was almost always leftover food from these sacrifices that would be taken back into a meat market and sold. It was very typical in such a culture for families to take home this leftover food and have banquets or feasts with it.
This was causing major issues for Christians because they were weary about eating food sacrificed to idols, which led to Paul addressing it in 1 Corinthians 8. They thought that just by touching, it let alone digesting it, you would be united in the cultic, ritualistic, significance of pagan sacrifice. Now, some Christians believed it was okay because these false gods didn’t exist, thus the sacrifices were useless and done to nobody. While Paul does initially agree, he makes a distinction between guarding your conscience and the conscience of other weaker Christians.

It’s important to note that “food” sacrificed to idols is in reference to sacrificed meat. Paul uses the Greek word κρέα (krea) in 1 Corinthians 8:13 and Romans 14:21 which is almost always used in reference to the bodily flesh of a sacrificial victim.

Even though the sacrifices were done to false gods, other newer Christians might see another Christian partaking in pagan sacrifices and be caused to stumble. Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 8:4 that “‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is no God but one.’” confirming such issues were circulating.
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC - 50 AD), a Jewish philosopher, gives witness to some pagans who spoke about this sacrificial practice:

Philo of Alexandria, A Treatise on the Virtues and on the Office of Ambassadors, Art. XLV

“O Lord Gaius, we are falsely accused; for we did sacrifice, and we offered up entire hecatombs, the blood of which we poured in a libation upon the altar, and the flesh we did not carry to our homes to make a feast and banquet upon it, as it is the custom of some people to do, but we committed the victims entire to the sacred flame as a burnt offering: and we have done this three times already, and not once only; on the first occasion when you succeeded to the empire, and the second time when you recovered from that terrible disease with which all the habitable world was afflicted at the same time, and the third time we sacrificed in hope of your victory over the Germans.”

Here, Philo speaks of pagans offering hecatombs (100 cattle) to Emperor Gaius Caligula. He also mentions quite plainly the practice of taking sacrificial meat home for banquets. Philo doesn’t just reference the pagans, however. In another work titled, “Special Laws” he describes the nature of Jewish
sacrifices and the relation between the altar and the consumption of the victim. He states,

Philo of Alexandria, Special Laws I, Art. XL

“... because it is fitting that the sacrifices should not be stored up for food, but should be openly exposed, so as to afford a meal to all who are in need of it, for the sacrifice when once placed on the altar, is no longer the property of the person who has offered it, but belongs to that Being to whom the victim is sacrificed, who, being a beneficent and bounteous God, makes the whole company of those who offer the sacrifice, partakers at the altar and messmates, only admonishing them not to look upon it as their own feast, for they are but stewards of the feast, and not the entertainers; and the entertainer is the man to whom all the preparation belongs, which it is not lawful to conceal while preferring parsimony and illiberal meanness to humanity which is a noble virtue.”

Those who eat the sacrifices become communers or partakers of the altar. This notion is spread all over the Old Testament as well, which we showed in the previous section on Christ as the Passover Lamb.

With the context, we can now better understand Paul’s comments. We read,

1 Corinthians 10:14-21 (NKJV [modified])

“Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? For the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all of that one bread. Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices communers of the altar? What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot commune of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.”

What Paul is saying here is that those who drink from the cup and those who eat the bread are communing with the body and blood of Christ. Further, in verse 17 he states that all Christians are united in the fact that they all partake of that one bread. What he's trying to show, is that eating the substance of the sacrificial victim affects a communion or “κοινωνίᾳ” (koinōnia) with what you sacrificed the victim to.

Paul notes the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons, comparing them to each other. Both of which are the consumption of victims. He then does the same for the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Unless Paul is drawing similarities between the Lord’s Supper, the Israeli ceremonial law, and the eating of pagan sacrifices in temple precincts, his statements are incoherent.

What he’s getting at here is the Lord's Supper has to have the same significance as the κοινωνίᾳ from eating the body of sacrificial victims and it has to be parallel with the element of getting κοινωνίᾳ with a deity through eating sacrificial victims of pagan sacrifices.

We can now see more clearly why this verse points to the Catholic belief of transubstantiation. Erick Ybarra gave a slightly long, but perfect explanation of the topic when he stated:

https://youtu.be/NZuuv5WhoLo?t=2669

“The fundamental element that makes the Jewish and Pagan sacrifices comparable to the Lord’s Supper is a real, true, and propitiatory sacrifice. This renders it necessary that in the Lord’s Supper, there is the true and substantial presence of the Victim. Otherwise, Paul’s linking the Supper of the Lord on the same cultic rationale with the communion that results from consuming the Old Testament sacrifices and the consuming of the Pagan sacrifices is simply without explanation. It renders Paul’s entire argument without meaning.

The commonality is that there is a sacrificial act that takes place where the gift of the victim is offered to propitiate the deity and then subsequently consumed in order to effect a koinōnia with the appeased and satisfied deity.

From this, we argue from the reality of a propitiatory sacrifice to the substantial presence of the victim, for you cannot have the presence of a sacrifice without the real presence of the victim. Ultimately, God took upon the substance of human nature in order to prepare for the sacrifice that would redeem humankind. Therefore, just like the sacrifice of Jesus itself requires the substance of human nature, so does the Eucharistic sacrifice, which represents that one sacrifice, require the presence of Jesus’ human redemption, i.e., tantamount to saying Christ did not need to have a human nature.”

Paul’s letters leave no room for merely “symbolic” interpretations. The comparison to pagan sacrifices and the altars of the Old Testament are very real parallelisms.

The Eucharist - Historical Evidence

In the early Church, it was unanimously agreed that Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist. Due to this, the early Roman pagans despised Catholic Christians. Roman society tolerated many vices, but cannibalism was something even immoral Rome hated. The charge of cannibalism applied to the Eucharist and how early Christians believed that Jesus Christ was truly present in the Eucharist and drank the Blood of Christ. Pagans even fabricated a story about a barbaric Christian ritual involving the consumption of the flesh of a child victim of ritual murder and incestuous orgies.

However, many early Catholic apologists sought to defend the faith from the pagans which gave us some of the best early Church sources for the Eucharist. Apologists such as St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, and more all believed Jesus was truly present in this sacrament.

St. Justin Martyr (First Apology [A.D. 155])

“And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so 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 by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation and nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Justin Martyr's words are very clear. The usage of phrases like, "food but in like manner as Jesus Christ", "transmutation", and "is the flesh and blood of that Jesus..." is so clear many Protestants are forced to accept that the Eucharist was taught in the 2nd century. St. Ignatius of Antioch makes this even more clear when he stated:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Philadelphians [A.D. 110])

“Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood: one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

The first century catechism, the Didache, even mentions the Eucharist. Further proving how Catholic the early Church actually was:

Didache, Ch. 9 [A.D. 70]

"Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6."

Chapter 10 of the Didache then gives a Eucharistic prayer after communion. The evidence is insurmountable.

Conclusion

As stated above, the Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine offered up during the Catholic mass. And just like Ezekiel ate the scroll containing the Words of God (Ezekiel 2:8-3:3), we are to eat the body and blood of Jesus who is the Word of God (John 1:1-14). And just as Joseph provided grain to save his people from famine, so does Christ give us his body to save us from sin. As stated in the Catechism,

"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)