Our Holy Eucharist is many things. It is material and it is mystery, and we will not completely understand everything about it in this life. A few months ago, I was asked to teach about the Eucharist in my parish RCIA class (now OCIA). I accepted and the lesson materials were send to me (1).
The lesson in question presented the Holy Eucharist under three headings: The Real Presence of Christ, The Eucharist as Meal, and The Eucharist as Sacrifice. The purpose of this article is to show that this lesson distorts the true meaning of the Eucharist, and this distortion leads to misrepresentation and falsehood.
For this reason, it is no longer safe to conclude that all catechumens are being taught the truth about Catholic doctrine. Parents and other concerned persons need to be aware of what is being taught to our children and loved ones. I’ve heard it said that a lie repeated enough times begins to sound true. Also, and more convincingly, is the idea that to sell a lie merely mix it with some truth. Hopefully you will find this article relevant and helpful.
The Real Presence of Christ
Some truth is needed to make a lie acceptable to the palate. The author describes transubstantiation with accuracy. The bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ:
The appearances -the outer aspects like taste, color and weight-remain just as they were before the consecration, but the deep realities have been changed into the Body and the Blood of the living Christ.
Curiously, the author omits that the Mass is a sacrifice offered in atonement for our sins, and that Jesus is both priest and victim at every Mass. Thus, without sacrifice and atonement, the Eucharist loses its true meaning, without “sacrifice” there is no redemption. Therefore, the Mass becomes a miracle without redemptive power.
The Eucharist as Meal
Have you heard it said, “that Jesus is the Meal,” I’ve heard it, and I’ve seen it written in the lesson under discussion. In the lesson “ Jesus as a Meal” is expressed as follows: “The Eucharist as Meal.” It is the same thing, since Jesus is the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is Jesus, Jesus is the meal. In some dark and twisted manner, the author, in his own mind, has managed to convert the meaning of transubstantiation, the meaning of our Mass, into a meal-this is absurd and frightening.
The author goes on to say that the Mass is a family meal whereby we unite ourselves with Jesus. The exact words in context define the Mass as follows:
… it’s in celebrating this family meal, which we call the Mass, that we unite ourselves with Jesus’ act of will and offer ourselves to God, mirroring the self-dedication Jesus had when he died on the cross.” (third paragraph from subtitle “The Eucharist as Sacrifice).
What can these words possibly mean? Is there any significance ? Exactly what is the Mass according to the preceding definition? Firstly, it is apparent that we share a “family meal” in Church, and that the family meal is the Mass. Secondly, “this sharing unites us to Jesus’ act of will….mirroring the self-dedication when He died on the cross.” The words of the last sentence are rhetorical, they sound important but say nothing, there is no substance, there is nothing to hang onto, nothing to remember, except that the Mass is a family meal celebrating Jesus for His good will. Is there nothing more to say about the Mass than that!
The key premise that “The Mass is the Celebration of a Family Meal” is repeated throughout the lesson: For example, to quote just a few of these repetitions:
- “ The meals Jesus shared with sinners and outcasts add to the significance of his farewell meal with his apostles. “
- “This meal was a powerful message for the Apostles…”.
- “Centuries of tradition had given all formal meals among devout Jews a religious significance.”
- “What significance do you connect with sharing a meal?”
- “Compare the Mass to the family table…..”
- “What kinds of outcasts would you invite to share a meal with you?”
In reading this lesson I had to ask myself “what is the significance of reducing the Holy Eucharist to a (family) meal as far as the author of this lesson is concerned”? The answers look something like this: sharing, bonding, and fellowship, the premise that the Holy Eucharist is a (family) meal, and a meal is sharing, bonding, and fellowship, etc., then the purpose of the Holy Eucharist becomes sharing, bonding, and fellowship, which translates to “love thy neighbor,” which of course is a good thing, but not good enough, because our Lord told us to Love God first, then our neighbor.
When Jesus was questioned as to what is the greatest commandment, He answered, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (St. Matthew 22: 37-39, NAB).
Loving our neighbor without loving God is secular humanism, a new kind of “religion” which gives us, theoretically, a paradise without God. But this is another topic for another time. If Catholics view the Eucharist as only a meal and a way of bonding with each other then we are in serious trouble. “The Eucharist is the source and the summit of the Christian life,” (CCC 1324) and without the Eucharist there would be no Catholic Church.
The Eucharist as Sacrifice
The third and last topic is the Eucharist as Sacrifice. However, and not surprisingly, the subtitle does not do justice to the content because the author continues with an opposite meaning; namely, that there is no sacrifice in the Mass. In the author’s own words, he describes the Mass as follows: “… the Mass is not trying to replicate either the ancient sacrifices of the Temple ritual or the bloody event of Jesus’ death. “
In the old testament a priest offered a blood sacrifice “for the forgiveness of sins.” (Leviticus 4:13-21). Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20 and Hebrews 5:6, Hebrews 7:17). Like the priests of the old testament, He as high priest offered a living sacrifice to God the Father to atone for sin. On Calvary He was the priest, He was the victim (the living sacrifice), His body and blood were offered in atonement for our sins.
During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus, through the priest, is again the high priest offering a sacrifice, He is the sacrifice, He is the victim and through transubstantiation He again offers to God the Father His body and blood as a suitable sacrifice in reparation for sin. Calvary and the Mass are not two unrelated events; they are connected. One is a bloody sacrifice, the other an unbloody sacrifice, but in both, Jesus is sacrificing himself to the Father in atonement for our sins. ” The “Last Supper ” points to Calvary, the Mass points to Calvary, the “Last Supper” is the Mass, and the Mass is Calvary. It is not a meal. It is a sacrifice which brings us to the foot of the Cross.
The author attempts to remove all traces of sacrifice, atonement and reparation from the Mass. Firstly, by denying that there is any connection between the Mass today and the ancient blood sacrifices on the temple altars, and secondly, by denying that today’s Mass has any connection with Calvary.
So, what else is missing ? Sacrifice is missing, calvary is missing, and worship is missing. The Mass without sacrifice and forgiveness of sins is not Christocentric but Anthro centric. If one follows this line of thinking then “sharing” the Body and the Blood of Christ becomes the focus of the Mass, which brings us to the conclusion that our bonding, our fellowship is “the source and the summit of our faith. “
Conclusion
We are in a battle, a spiritual battle with eternal consequences. Our best line of defense consists of prayer, the sacraments and understanding our faith. To protect the gift and light of Faith, we must anchor it in reason and understanding (2). In the Parable of the Sower Jesus tells us that the only seeds which take root are the seeds sown with the person who understands and accepts what he understands: “But the seed sown on rich soil is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.” (Matthew 13: 23, NAB).
We all must be protected from false teaching. Each family, every Catholic must verify “the doctrine” given to them in religious education. This is best accomplished, first and foremost, by having on hand a personal copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Secondly, the CCC should be supplemented by an easy to read, concise catechism. I highly recommend one of the following: (1) A Brief Catechism For Adults written by Fr. William Cogan, and published by Tan Books, 1958. (2) The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, written by Bennet Kelley, and published by Catholic Book Publishing, 1969. Both catechisms are in traditional question and answer format, easy to use and easy to memorize.
On the parish level to reconstruct a solid Religious Education program I definitely recommend turning to the Dynamic Catholic Institute founded by Matthew Kelly, internationally known speaker and writer, a nonprofit organization focused on evangelization and Catholic renewal, especially helping parishes set up cost efficient (many programs are free) catechesis based on traditional Catholic Doctrine. To make contact merely google or search Dynamic Catholic.com
END NOTES
- Title: Journey of Faith Catechumenate, Author: Fr. John Mudd, Publisher: Liguori Publications, copyright 2000, Lesson Title: The Sacrament of the Eucharist
- “Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17 NAB). In order to keep the word of Christ and allow it to take root into our spirit, we must understand and accept what we have heard. We must accept with all our mind, heart, soul, and will, and we must understand what we accept.
5 thoughts on “What Does a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Look Like?”
Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION – BIG PVLPIT
To the ordinary papist:
1. The essential connection between the Old Testament (blood) sacrifice and the Eucharist (unbloody) sacrifice is that in both events, a priest offers a sacrifice in atonement for our sins.
The major premise is that “a sacrifice” is required for atonement.
2. The theology of a priest in mortal sin celebrating Mass is clearly explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “ex opere operato” #1127- #128. “It follows that the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God. ” Also see “In Persona Christi,”1548-#1550
Thank you for reading my article; your comments are appreciated.
To Susanne:
In this context, “first and second” refer to the importance of each commandment (for our salvation). Jesus Himself tells us: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the FIRST commandment. The second is like it: You shall love you neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22: 37-39, NAB).
Thank you for reading my article. Your comment is appreciated.
Pingback: THVRSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION – BIG PVLPIT
“because our Lord told us to Love God first, then our neighbor.”
Jesus said that only by loving God could we love our neighbor and that we demonstrated our love of God through our love of neighbor (what you do for the least of these you do for me). Because God is outside time, there is no linear “first versus second”. As He is love, so are His commands.
“ Firstly, by denying that there is any connection between the Mass today and the ancient blood sacrifices on the temple altars, . . .”
This is what happens when you mix OT metaphors with NT traditions. Really, there is no connection between killing animals (like God thought that slitting his creatures’ throats was good and pleasing to Him – and then offering them to God so the priests only, could make a MEAL of their bodies. Jesus cleansing the temple should make that obvious. The manna in the desert was a MEAL likened to the Eucharist.
“ During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus, through the priest, …”
You need to explain the theology behind the fact that a priest in mortal sin, who may himself have doubts about transubstantiation, can perform this holy, valid rite, while someone in the pew, steeped in sanctifying grace, could not hold a (proverbial) candle to the celebrant. This is why all non-Catholic Christians have opted for the symbolism; while granted, they do not retain the graces conferred by the Real Presence.