Transubstantiation of the Eucharist

[tee_eff_em]

Good point. But isn’t the transformation at Baptism primarily a SPIRITUAL one? If the Eucharist SPIRITUALLY changes (but not physically), then I’m on the same page with you. If it is supposed to PHYSICALLY change, then it should be measurable/quantifiable, just like all of the rest of Jesus’ miracles, which provided ample proof…sometimes with proof left over…

The Eucharist is not (typically) a PHYSICAL change. It is a SUBSTANTIAL change.

I’m not even sure it is correct to introduce the SPIRITUAL/PHYSICAL dichotomy into baptism – We human beings are not souls wrapped in flesh, nor are we meat which has been ensouled. We human beings are BodyAndSoul – So we are now, so we shall be in the end – It is only for a brief and painful time that the two must be separated in death. :twocents:

tee

 

[VociMike]

bewildered

Was Thomas then Protestant/Atheist?

No, but Thomas wasn’t spending his time trying to convince others that Jesus hadn’t really risen from the dead either, and that they were wrong in believing he had. It’s one thing to doubt, and it’s another to demand of other believers a standard of proof that is impossible for the Christian faith (or any faith) to meet, and a standard that one does not even apply to the other areas of his faith.

Sorry, I always took Jesus’ response to Thomas as encouraging. He created Thomas, who doubts, and shows him precisely what Thomas’ brain requires to believe. Jesus DOES commend those who did not need this proof, but he doesn’t withhold proof from Thomas.

Please don’t be offended if I am a weaker brother/sister and require more than you do…

I just want to know why you demand physical evidence in this case, but you don’t demand physical evidence about all the other claims of the Christian faith. Why this selective doubt, where only Catholic distinctives are doubted, when other equally unprovable assertions of the faith are accepted?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The Eucharist is not (typically) a PHYSICAL change. It is a SUBSTANTIAL change.

And the change comes about with the following command…
hoc est poculum, or a common translation Hocus Pocus…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If it is supposed to PHYSICALLY change, then it should be measurable/quantifiable, just like all of the rest of Jesus’ miracles, which provided ample proof…sometimes with proof left over…

Hi Dulcimer,

Nice allusion to the multiplication of the loaves there . There you have a supernatural change of accidents (number and extension are accidents) without a change in substance.

In the Eucharist you have a supernatural substantial change, without the usual corresponding accidental change. Digestion, for example is a natural change of substance with a corresponding change of accidents.

Anyway. . . as a response to your post: The Eucharist is NOT just like all the rest of Jesus’ miracles. That is the point. Christ is giving HIMSELF to us. Not wine as at Cana, and not loaves at Bethsaida, but His very life. (Although I note that Cana and Bethsaida were both preliminary signs of what was to come.)

So, the question is rather, how could Christ accomplish what He intended if there WERE an observable change? Would you rather have the bread turn into bits of flesh? That wouldn’t be a very accurate sign, since we don’t recieve pieces of Christ, but the whole Christ. Furthermore we receive the living Christ, and so the “observable change” would have to involve living flesh and blood.

Thankfully, Christ instituted a sacramental presence. We would not be able to receive Him as He intended but for the genius of God’s love, which is the Eucharist.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Dulcimer]

No, but Thomas wasn’t spending his time trying to convince others that Jesus hadn’t really risen from the dead either, and that they were wrong in believing he had. It’s one thing to doubt, and it’s another to demand of other believers a standard of proof that is impossible for the Christian faith (or any faith) to meet, and a standard that one does not even apply to the other areas of his faith.

Um, I didn’t say he did. And where am I doing so? I said I have issue with this…I am asking the question…For MY understanding. How am I now different from Thomas?

I just want to know why you demand physical evidence in this case, but you don’t demand physical evidence about all the other claims of the Christian faith. Why this selective doubt, where only Catholic distinctives are doubted, when other equally unprovable assertions of the faith are accepted?

I was told earlier in the thread that the change was PHYSICAL. (This answer has been modified a bit by other posters, and we now seem to all be in agreement.) IF it was a physical change, I said I required physical proof to believe.

Where historical proof and/or testimony is offered (on the historicity of any of the Church Father’s teaching…on Purgatory for example)…I have accepted links/books/information as proof.

Of course, I reserve the right to withhold my agreement with such doctrines until I’ve actually read/researched the “proof” for myself…Just like the Bereans, who were commended by Paul for not leaping to believe without confirming “new doctrine” against accepted Scripture.

 

[Dulcimer]

Nice allusion to the multiplication of the loaves there

Heh! Glad to know someone knows the references…I’m very allusional grin

The Eucharist is NOT just like all the rest of Jesus’ miracles. That is the point. Christ is giving HIMSELF to us. Not wine as at Cana, and not loaves at Bethsaida, but His very life. (Although I note that Cana and Bethsaida were both preliminary signs of what was to come.)

So far so good…

So, the question is rather, how could Christ accomplish what He intended if there WERE an observable change? Would you rather have the bread turn into bits of flesh? That wouldn’t be a very accurate sign, since we don’t recieve pieces of Christ, but the whole Christ. Furthermore we receive the living Christ, and so the “observable change” would have to involve living flesh and blood.

Actually, I’m grateful this doesn’t happen; I think it would scare a lot of believers at the table! It is very acceptable to me to be told that it is a SPIRITUAL change. I don’t quite follow the language “supernatural substantial change”, but my poor brain can comprehend SPIRITUAL or SUPERNATURAL change. If that is true, we’re all on the same page…finally!

(I’m starting to think that some of the disagreements between RCC and Protestant camps are based on terminology, not substance!)

 

[VociMike]

Um, I didn’t say he did. And where am I doing so? I said I have issue with this…I am asking the question…For MY understanding. How am I now different from Thomas?

OK, sometimes I get the players mixed up.

If you’re not arguing against the Catholic teaching but only asking about it, then what I said does not apply to you. There are a whole bunch of non-Catholic Christians arguing against Catholic teachings right now on the forum, and I lumped you in with them.

I was told earlier in the thread that the change was PHYSICAL. (This answer has been modified a bit by other posters, and we now seem to all be in agreement.) IF it was a physical change, I said I required physical proof to believe.

I agree, “physical change” is not the correct terminology.

Of course, I reserve the right to withhold my agreement with such doctrines until I’ve actually read/researched the “proof” for myself…Just like the Bereans, who were commended by Paul for not leaping to believe without confirming “new doctrine” against accepted Scripture.

Be careful about appealing to the Bereans. Remember, even though they had the scriptures and the very preaching of the apostles, some of them still rejected the gospel. It’s not clear they had any better track record than the Greeks in that regard.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

(I’m starting to think that some of the disagreements between RCC and Protestant camps are based on terminology, not substance!)

Although I applaud any progress we can make in better understanding the Truth, sometimes disagreements are a necessary component of that undertaking. Not every view will correspond to the truth.

Your choice of words made me chuckle. I assure you that the disagreement IS based on substance. That is, the change of substance.

Substance is meta-physical, so as Tee was pointing out above, limiting ourselves to physical descriptions takes us astray somewhat.

In fact, it might do us good to remember that not only material things have substance but spiritual things have substance as well. For examble, the soul is a spiritual substance.

The point is that the “whatness” of bread (the substance) changes into the substance of Christ: real Body, real Blood, real Soul and real Divinity.

VC

edit and p.s.: Just to make sure no one misunderstands. . . Divinity (God) is not a substance. One simple reason (not the most profound reason) is that God is not a subject of accidents as substances are.

 

[Dulcimer]

Be careful about appealing to the Bereans.

I allude to them because they fit our discussion (as per what Paul said about them in Acts.) Obviously, ANYONE can go astray (even St. Peter) because we are human. Even gasp me!

(And thanks for pointing out that historical note…I was not aware of that…)

 

[Afterburned6387]

In my previous posts, I have laid out a succinct case for why the Lord’s Supper is symbolic of a real “Eucharist” that takes place at another time, I have used scripture extensively in the pursuit of this, and the only counter-arguments I have heard is that

A) The church can’t have been wrong for 2000 years

B) Diluting the idea of “Transubstantiation” down the the point where the difference between it and symbolism is virtually nil

Please, someone prove to me, using scripture, that it actually becomes the flesh of christ, and furthermore that that is actually a meaningful change!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If, as Catholics contend the transubstantiation of the Eucharist is not symbolic, but rather the literal transformation of the host into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why then can no physical difference be discerned before and after the Priest performs the necessary ritual?

If it is a physical alteration should not that physical alteration be measurable and quantifiable?

Because, what the Bl. Sacrament is by transubstantiation, is not the same kind of thing as can be perceived. It belongs to a different order of being from the things that we perceive​

• through the senses
• or through their artificial extensions (such as microscopes)
• or through the intellect unaided by the theological virtue of faith
  The Blessed Sacrament is not simply a different kind of thing from these - it is unique; it is the only instance of the order of being to which it belongs. So although other things resemble it in this way or that, any likeness between them & it is incomplete.

The love between a husband & wife goes some of the way to illustrate what transubstantiation does - for

• love transforms those who love & those who are loved
• it unites them
• it nourishes them
• it strengthens them
• it is real
• it is unique
• it is fruitful
• it is living
• it can always be denied by those not equipped to see it
• it is profoundly mysterious
• it is the work of the Holy Spirit
• it is brought about by human agents
• it builds up the Church
• it cannot be perceived except by faith
• it is sacramental
• it makes Christ known
  About this phrase - “the literal transformation of the host into the body and blood of Jesus Christ”: “literal” is not a good word to use. We are not dealing with letters, but with something different - letters are one-dimensional, but Divine acts such as transubstantiation are multi-dimensional; the difference is a bit like that between the written word “man”, & a living, breathing human being.

“Physical” is ambiguous: it can mean

• “tangible”
  or else
• “relating to the *physis *(= nature) of a thing”
  The word “literal” can also lead to misunderstanding what the Church means when she tries to put into words this reality for which no words can be found - for, it is not the Faith of the Church that Jesus Christ becomes present in a “gross and carnal” manner; His Presence is a real one, but “real” does not mean “perceptible to the senses”, nor does it mean “materialistic”. This error is called ultra-realism, & has been condemned.

A consecrated Host is not a piece of Christ, like a slice of meat. It is a finite & created piece of matter in which, through the transforming & creative power of the Holy Spirit, the Risen & Glorious Christ, the Son of God & Mary, becomes present. He is unchanged, for He is the Living God: what is very greatly changed, is the relation of certain material objects to Him. They exist in space - He is the Lord “Who fills heaven and earth”, &, somewhat as He dwells in His Saints in Heaven through charity, spacelessly, unconfined by those in whom He dwells, He is present to consecrated Hosts through transubstantiation. Christ in His Father’s Glory is transcendent - not limited by the finiteness of that in which He is pleased to dwell.

They are, & remain, material - otherwise we could not eat them: what is not material, is the mode of His Presence. He is present to them - but not affected by their materiality; He affects them, & us

 

[The_Truthinator]

Just another reason I’m an agnostic leaning toward atheism.

An agnostic pagan? Now I’m confused … Well, not really. It does sort of make sense. My cousin is the same way.

(Like the name, by the way. Egyptian mythology is the foshizzle. If I had to be a* blasphemous heathen, *I’d lean towards the Egyptian mythos myself. lol **I’m just messing with you! **I call you a “blasphemous heathen,” you call me “fat.” It’s all good. Okay, so I’m not … But you still can!)

Anyhoo, yep, transubstantiation could be a great fraud–or totally authentic. There’s really a fifty-fifty chance here, if you think about it. In either case you’re taking a leap of faith. From where I’m sort of coming from, my soul’s not worth losing in a game of chance–especially with such cruddy odds.

As the Big Bang theory states that the universe–time, space, and matter–had a beginning, and since it is evident from our own world that everything possesses a certain cause-effect relationship, as we do have an observable domino effect in regards to … well, everything, what do you suggest the universe finds its Cause in? How do you explain from a purely naturalistic perspective the uniqueness of the human race? How do you attempt to reconcile such views to man’s constant display of spirituality? He is a religious being; that is undeniable. Is he innately illogical in this respect?

“The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for… The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe… The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul… The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end.”

CCC 27, 32, 33, 34

“For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen.”–Wisdom 13:5

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder’s craft.”–Psalm 19:2

“Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.”–Romans 1:20

You’ve (honestly) never looked at a sunset and thought that, just maybe, you were seeing a glimpse of a Being much greater than yourself–loving and good, even beautiful in some respect? If not, go out next time you see one. Sit, think, reflect …

Better agnostic than atheist, IMO!

You could take Christ at his word in regards to the Eucharist, but if you’re anything like Thomas, you’ll want a little more proof (that’s good; God encourages the skeptic). Look into some Eucharistic miracles. Granted, we can’t know if all of them are true or not, but there is a pretty overwhelming consensus that SOMETHING happened on several different occasions on several different continents and a distinct possibility that Jesus was type AB blood.

Look into the Fatima incident, too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Seventy to a hundred thousand witnesses might be a little faith-booster for an agnostic-pagan chap like yourself. (I’m not British or anything, I just like to say “chap.” Don’t you?)

Anyway, it’s late, I’m delusional to the umpteenth degree, so I bid thee and thy clan farewell!

Peace, homie, peace in Christ.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

A good way to understand it is this:

Go back to the transporter on Star Trek. They always made sure that the person didn’t MATERIALIZE in a wall or a door.

When Jesus left Heaven and went to see the disciples in the room where Thomas was and where the door ws locked he went THROUGH the walls–He was superior to the Star Trek transporter!

The second He intersected the wall of the building He was SUBSTANTIALLY in that wall without being seen.

We know that Jesus’ body after the resurrection was Physically solid.

We know that Jesus’ soul was in that Body.

We know that Jesus was fully God.

Even though God is Omnipresent or everywhere we also know that Jesus as Omnipresent God was present LOCALLY in his physical Body.

We know that that body had blood that ran through it.

So tell me this oh doubters in SUBSTANTIALITY–why is it so easy to believe that Jesus could be SUBSTANTIALY in the wall as He was journeying from Heaven THROUGH the wall to meet the disciples and was unseen–but

Impossible to believe that Jesus could be SUBSTANTIALY present in bread and wine and be unseen?!

And why is it so easy for a person to believe that their own soul is in their own body even though they cannot see it–

But unfathomable to believe that Jesus’ soul could be present in the bread and wine even though we don’t see it?

The reson the Eucharist is so believable is that Jesus resurrected as more than just body and blood but also as soul and divinity.

If the Eucharist was only spiritual we wouldn’t be getting the totality of Jesus!

And what is a greater test of faith–believing in the soul and divinity of Jesus, or the body and blood of Jesus–or believing in all four with the outside appearances of bread and wine remaining?

That is what separates true faith from the faith of those that walked away from Jesus in John 6:66.

And when Paul commands us to “Discern the Body of the Lord or bring condemnation on ourselves” he isn’t lying!

The Holy Spirit inspired him to write that truth!

The Body of Christ TRUELY is present in the Eucharist–not just the soul or divinity of Christ in a spiritual way.

Come on non believers–it doesn’t take infinite imagination to believe in SUBSTANTIALITY once you can already believe in an invisible soul being in a body–just change the outward appearance of a Jesus’ body for the appearance of bread and wine!

Then you have a miracle far greater than just a spiritual reality–you have the miracle of the totality of Christ being with us “until the end of the age” as He promised!

If you really believe Jesus when He said that then you must believe in the Eucharist!

 

[Church_Militant]

sounds like someone is just stubborn

And The Decretals Of Isidore (the cited text) is the bases for Papal Authority, and most of Canon law, and yes, it was a forgery, forged in 852AD

Then my previous citation stands since the epistle of St. Ignatius is verifiably more ancient (107 AD) than your false documents.

In my previous posts, I have laid out a succinct case for why the Lord’s Supper is symbolic of a real “Eucharist” that takes place at another time, I have used scripture extensively in the pursuit of this, and the only counter-arguments I have heard is that

A) The church can’t have been wrong for 2000 years

B) Diluting the idea of “Transubstantiation” down the the point where the difference between it and symbolism is virtually nil

Please, someone prove to me, using scripture, that it actually becomes the flesh of christ, and furthermore that that is actually a meaningful change!

Meaningful? Paul thought so in his letter to the Corinthians chapter 10:16-17 and 11:23-30.
You have so far failed to even deal with these clearly Eucharistic texts.

I’ll say this then… In my studies as a non-Catholic I never saw anything in their teaching that validly indicted the Eucharistic Real Presence, I just didn’t understand it well enough to see its importance. Nor was I knowledgeable enough about the ECFs to recognize the inaccurate hype as they asserted that what they were teaching and practicing was authentic New Testament Christianity. Once I discovered these inconsistencies, it made it all the more important that I pursue the truth wherever it went and that led me to the Catholic Church.

There is no dilution of the Eucharist, and if you got some opinions to that effect you either did not understand what they were saying or they are not in line with Catholic teaching at all at all. I suggest that perhaps you take the time to carefully study the Papal encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia from Pope John Paul II, because it makes all this very very clear. That is a very study intensive document and will require a serious time investment on your part.

 

[Joero]

In my previous posts, I have laid out a succinct case for why the Lord’s Supper is symbolic of a real “Eucharist” that takes place at another time, I have used scripture extensively in the pursuit of this, and the only counter-arguments I have heard is that

A) The church can’t have been wrong for 2000 years

B) Diluting the idea of “Transubstantiation” down the the point where the difference between it and symbolism is virtually nil

Please, someone prove to me, using scripture, that it actually becomes the flesh of christ, and furthermore that that is actually a meaningful change!

I beg your pardon to all of you here who are participating in this thread, for my intrusion, for I also respect cultural supremacy of races. Please forgive me for my intrusion.

Since this topic is about the very essential criteria of the Catholic Faith, I feel am oblige to participate in the discussion to shed light of the topic being discussed particularly the “transubstantiation”.

Transubstantiation, firstly, I do admit, cannot be read explicitly in the bible, but thru the church of our lord Jesus Christ wisdom is given (Ephesians 3: 10) which understandably speaking, it was the church who named that particular term ( Mat. 18: 18 ). When Jesus Christ instituted the holy eucharist which were then the bread (unleaven bread) and wine, used usually by Jews in their commemoration of the Passover, Jesus Christ truthfully said " This is my body" - for the bread He was holding, and for the cup of wine He said " this my blood which seals God’s covenant" ( Mat. 26: 26 - 28 ). These words of Jesus Christ could be attested to the words spoken by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians which says ( 1 Corinthians 11: 27 - 29 ) " It follows that if one of you eats the Lord’s bread or drinks from His cup in a way that dishonors Him, you are guilty of sin against the Lord’s body and blood. So then, you should each examine yourself first, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup. For if you donot recognize the meaning of the Lord’s body when you eat the bread and drink from the cup, you bring judgment on your self as you eat and drink."
It is obviously a literal sense, if we are to use hermeneutics on this particular passages, not a metaphor, symbolical, etc.
The “real presence” ( which again another term given by the church) is there, truly and factly !
Why ? The holy eucharist is the representation of the sacrifice of our lord Jesus Christ on the cross, though not bloody but an unbloody oblation, whose body and blood were atoned for the forgiveness of our sins.
To minimize doubts I should clarify these things:
Let it be remembered that the bread and wine were used in the old covenant by the Mosaic law and later on was prophecized by prophet Isaiah that these kind of sacrifices including the animals sacrifices were sort of abomination to God and unacceptable by Him ( Isa. 1: 11 - 14). So to speak, that if the bread and wine, on the consecration by the ordained priest stays to be bread and wine falls to the category of the same bread and wine used in the old covenant which were abominable to God. In the holy sacrifice of the mass, it is Jesus Christ himself, who offers it to God the Father, as the High Priest of the New Covenant ( though not perceptible by our sense of sight but by our faith)

Perhaps, in this way I have sheded light to the real presence of the holy eucharist.

Thanks.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

If, as Catholics contend the transubstantiation of the Eucharist is not symbolic, but rather the literal transformation of the host into the body and blood of Jesus Christ,** why then can no physical difference be discerned before and after the Priest performs the necessary ritual?**
If it is a physical alteration should not that physical alteration be measurable and quantifiable?

You say your a pagan, so I’ll answer as if you were a believer.

If a Christian believed that sins can be forgiven, then do they see a physical difference after they have been forgiven ?

Catholics believe in Absolution, and although no difference can be spotted on the outside (well sometimes) believe me I’ve walked out of the Confessional feeling different, walking on air.

Jesus said, Blessed are those that believe but have not seen".

Many saw Jesus, but still they didn’t believe Him, while the physical can be grasped, the spiritual is unseen, and much harder to grasp.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

If, as Catholics contend the transubstantiation of the Eucharist is not symbolic, but rather the literal transformation of the host into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why then can no physical difference be discerned before and after the Priest performs the necessary ritual?

If it is a physical alteration should not that physical alteration be measurable and quantifiable?

The substance changes while the accidents (physical host and wine) remain physically the same. Hence the name transubstantiation. We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because of Jn 6 and the Bread of Life discourse. We take Jesus literally, and you apparently, do not.

We also base our belief on the constant teaching of the Church that the Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice of the risen Christ for the salvation of our soul. You can find this tradition in the ancient Christian liturgies and the writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

In my previous posts, I have laid out a succinct case for why the Lord’s Supper is symbolic of a real “Eucharist” that takes place at another time, I have used scripture extensively in the pursuit of this, and the only counter-arguments I have heard is that

The Lord’s Supper celebrated all over the world everyday by Catholic priests is that same sacrifice which happened on Calvary 2,000 years ago. Jn 6 demands a literal interpretation. I’m not familiar with you or your arguments, but I am familiar with Fundamentalist Protestant arguments for a symbolic Eucharist and I personally don’t buy them.

Afterburned6387:

A) The church can’t have been wrong for 2000 years

The theology for a purely symbolic Eucharist did not exist until Ulrich Zwingli propagated this heresy during the reformation in Switzerland. The other Apostolic Churches in existed today still believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Eucharist as the paschal Sacrifice. These are the Orthodox churches, the church of the 7 ecumenical councils (Constantinople), and the anti-Chalchedonian Churches of Alexandria (the Copts), the Assyrians, and so on

Afterburned6387:

B) Diluting the idea of “Transubstantiation” down the the point where the difference between it and symbolism is virtually nil

Who is diluting it? Do people who believe that the Eucharist is symbolic believe that it is the same sacrifice happening there and now as it did 2,000 years ago? Absolutely not!

Afterburned6387:

Please, someone prove to me, using scripture, that it actually becomes the flesh of christ, and furthermore that that is actually a meaningful change!

Jn 6.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

from scripturecatholic.com:

Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

                                      Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem                      where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the                      Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.                     

                 Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and                      king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy                      requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This                      prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.                     

                 Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in                      every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only                      one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This                      prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the                      world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered                      for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church,                      then Malachi is a false prophet.                     

                 Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a                      perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.                     

                 Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs                      upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute                      the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Scripture

1. 
   *] Old Testament
   1. 
      *] Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
      *] Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice
      
      *] New Testament
      1. 
         *] Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist
         *] Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence
         *] Jesus’ Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice Where the Lamb Must be Eaten
         *] Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
         *] Jesus in Glory Perpetually Offers the Father His Sacrifice on our Behalf
         *] The Book of Revelation and the Holy Mass
         
         Tradition / Church Fathers
         1. 
            *] Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist
            *] The Bread and Wine Become Jesus’ Body and Blood

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

(b). Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice

				Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a  						substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real  						sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.


				 					Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without  					blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without  					blemish.

				
				Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door  					posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the  					two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

				
				Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for  					God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true  					paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive  					their sins. 					


				Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the "family of God" shall eat the  					lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full  					communion with the Church. 					


				Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the  					new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to  					partake of the Lamb. 					


				Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John  					19:33 - none of Jesus' bones were broken. 					


				Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain  					them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread  					from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to  					heaven. 					


				Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the  					presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the  					Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of  					bread and wine. 					


				Exodus 29:33 – God commands that they shall eat those things with which  					atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word “eukaristia” which means “thanksgiving”).

				Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the  					blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is  					the source of new life, and now must be drunk. 					


				Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on  					drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true  					source of life. 					


				2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and  					the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ. 					


				2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was  					killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This  					foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must  					now be consumed for our salvation. 					


				Neh. 9:15 – God gave the Israelites bread from heaven for their hunger, which  					foreshadows the true heavenly bread who is Jesus. 					


				Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels  					foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ. 					


				Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our  					sins and who must be consumed. 					


				Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited  					to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is  					Jesus Christ. 					


				Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who  					drink Him will thirst for more. 					


				Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll  					which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ,  					who must be consumed. 					


				Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the  					sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem. 					


				Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will  					cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.