THE SACRAMENT OF THE MOST HOLY EUCHARIST

The Eucharist is the most sublime of the sacraments, the source and summit of the sacramental
organism. As the Second Vatican Council teaches,

In the most blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ
himself our Pasch and the living bread which gives life to men through his flesh – that flesh which is
given life and gives life through the Holy Spirit. Thus, men are invited and led to offer themselves,
their works and all creation with Christ. For this reason, the Eucharist appears as the source and the
summit of all preaching of the Gospel: catechumens are gradually led up to participation in the
Eucharist, while the faithful who have already been consecrated in baptism and confirmation are
fully incorporated in the Body of Christ by the reception of the Eucharist. 1

The reason for this excellence of the Eucharist is that, as the Council has stated, it contains
Christ himself, he who is the source of all our spiritual life. In this sacrament he is present truly, really
and substantially. For this reason, all the other sacraments and works of the apostolate are directed
towards the Eucharist as to their end, since their end is to unite us to him who is present in this
sacrament.

All this notwithstanding, the Eucharist does not substitute any of the other sacraments. Rather,
each sacrament has its peculiar role in the life of the Church. It is thus that the Eucharist is regarded
as the third of the sacraments of Christian initiation. As the Catechism teaches, “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.” 2

The inexpressible richness of this sacrament is reflected in the names which Christian tradition
gives it. The Catechism offers a clear presentation and explanation of some of the most outstanding
ones:

Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek

words eucharistein and eulogein recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a
meal - God’s works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.

The Lord’s Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his
disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in
the heavenly Jerusalem.

The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal when as master of the
table he blessed and distributed the bread, above all at the Last Supper. It is by this action that
his disciples will recognise him after his Resurrection, and it is this expression that the first
Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; by doing so they signified that all
who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in
him.

1
PO, n. 5: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Presbyterorum,” 765–766.
2
CCC, n. 1322: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 335.
49
 The Eucharistic assembly, because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful,
the visible expression of the Church.

The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes
the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, ‘sacrifice of praise,’ spiritual sacrifice,
pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old
Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church’s whole liturgy finds its center and most
intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its
celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the
Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by
this same name.

Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers
in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things - the first meaning of
the phrase ‘communion of saints’ in the Apostles’ Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven,
medicine of immortality, viaticum...

Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished
concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfil God’s will in their
daily lives.3

Each of these names brings to mind certain aspects of this sacrament. Some refer to the origin
of the rite: Eucharist, Breaking of Bread, the Lord’s Supper and Memorial of the Lord’s Passion and
Resurrection. Other names express the sacrificial dimension of this sacrament: Holy Sacrifice, holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, ‘Sacrifice of praise,’ Spiritual Sacrifice, Pure and Soly Sacrifice. The names
“Sacrament of the Altar” and “Sacred Host,” which the Catechism has not mentioned, would also
belong to this group. Other names highlight the real presence of the Lord in the consecrated species:
Body of Christ, Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Bread of angels, Bread from heaven, the
Holy Things, Most Blessed Sacrament. Other names indicate the effects of this sacrament: Bread of Life,
Medicine of immortality, Viaticum, Communion. Some highlight the form of the liturgical celebration:
Eucharistic Assembly (synaxis), Holy and Divine Liturgy, Sacred Mysteries, Most Blessed Sacrament.
Other names designate the entire celebration by the rite of dismissal at its end: Mass, Holy Mass.
Finally, the name “the Lord’s Supper” makes some reference, as the Catechism has pointed out, to the
eschatological dimension of the Eucharist.

These names, and many others not mentioned here, highlight the great multiplicity, and
profound unity, of aspects of the Eucharist. As a sacrament, it can be considered under three principal
dimensions: (1) the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Lord’s Sacrifice, (2) the sacrament of
Communion and (3) the sacrament of the Lord’s real presence. Before examining the details of these
dimensions, however, it is convenient to examine the scriptural testimony regarding the Eucharist,
and the historical development of the dogma.

3
CCC, nn. 1328–1332: Ibid., 336–337.
50
1. The Eucharist in the New Testament

It is in Jesus’ action at the Last Supper that the Church recognizes the institution of the
Eucharist. In order, therefore, to ensure a correct comprehension of this sacrament, it is convenient to
understand the exact meaning of Jesus’ words and gestures at the Last Supper. After this, it will be
convenient to examine, as well, the teachings on the Eucharist in other parts of the New Testament.

1.1 The Biblical Narratives of the Institution of the Eucharist

There are four texts in which the New Testament describes the institution of the Eucharist. These are
Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:19-20 and 1 Cor 11:23-25. Looking at them side-by-side, as they are
shown in the table below, helps to notice the equivalences and differences between them (in the table, some
preceding and following verses of each text are also shown, for better comprehension of the context).

Mt 26: 20-29 Mk 14:17-25 Lk 22:14-20 1 Cor 11:23-26

23
For I received
from the Lord what I
also passed on to you:
20 17 14
When evening When When the The Lord Jesus,
came, Jesus was reclining at evening came, Jesus hour came, Jesus and his on the night he was
the table with the Twelve… arrived with the apostles reclined at the betrayed,
Twelve. 18 While they table. 15 And he said to
were reclining at the them, “I have eagerly
table eating, … desired to eat this
Passover with you
16
before I suffer. For I
tell you, I will not eat it
again until it finds
fulfillment in the
kingdom of God.”

17
After taking
the cup, he gave thanks
and said, “Take this and
divide it among
you. 18 For I tell you I
will not drink again
from the fruit of the vine
until the kingdom of
God comes.”

26
While they were
eating, Jesus took bread, and
when he had given thanks, he
broke it and gave it to his
disciples, saying,
“Take and eat; this
is my body.”
22 19
While they And he took took
24
were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and bread, and when he
bread, and when he had broke it, and gave it to had given thanks, he
given thanks, he broke them, saying, broke it and said,
it and gave it to his
disciples, saying,
“Take it; this is “This is my “This is my
my body.” body given for you; do body, which is for you;
51
 this in remembrance of do this in remembrance
me.” of me.”
27 23 20 25
Then he took a Then he took In the same In the same
cup, and when he had given a cup, and when he had way, after the supper he way, after supper he
thanks, he gave it to them, given thanks, he gave it took the cup, saying, took the cup, saying,
saying, to them, and they all
drank from it.
24
“Drink from it, all “This is my “This cup is “This cup is
of you. 28 This is my blood of blood of the new covenant in my the new covenant in my
the covenant, which is the covenant, which is blood, which is poured blood; do this,
poured out for many for the poured out for out for you. whenever you drink it,
forgiveness of sins. many,” he said to them. in remembrance of me.”
29 25 26
I tell you, I will “Truly I tell For whenever
not drink from this fruit of you, I will not drink you eat this bread and
the vine from now on until again from the fruit of drink this cup, you
that day when I drink it new the vine until that day proclaim the Lord’s
with you in my Father’s when I drink it new in death until he comes.
kingdom.” the kingdom of God.”

One striking feature of these texts is the similarity of language and the essential concordance of
the fundamental elements that are narrated. Besides this, however, a synoptic glance at them shows
that the texts of Matthew and Mark are very similar each to the other, and the same can be affirmed of
those of Luke and Paul.

Beginning with Matthew and Mark, they tell us that Jesus instituted the Eucharist “while they were
eating,” but without telling us at which exact moment during the supper. Furthermore, these two texts do not
place any interval between the consecration of the bread and that of the wine. The words of the consecration
of the bread are very similar in both: “take ... this is my body,” without any additions. Only Matthew
mentions the remission of sins in the consecration of the wine. The expression is very Semitic and evidences
the Semitic origin of the narration. In Matthew, Our Lord commands his Apostles to eat his body, and Mark
testifies that his desire was fulfilled: they all drank from the cup. Both Matthew and Mark situate the
announcement of the eschatological banquet after the celebration of the Eucharist.

The texts of Paul and Luke clearly indicate that the chalice was not consecrated immediately
after the consecration of the bread but, rather, “after supper.” This detail evidences the historicity of
the narrative, and that the Eucharist was instituted during the Jewish Passover (see Lk 22:15). With
the expressions “given for you” (Lk 22:19) and “which is for you” (1 Cor 11:25), Luke and Paul
highlight the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. Both Luke and Paul mention the words “This cup is
the new covenant in my blood” pronounced over the chalice, which point out the newness of the
covenant sealed in Christ’s blood, which is in the chalice. Both Luke and Paul report Christ’s
commandment to celebrate the Eucharist: “do this in remembrance of me.” Paul, in fact, reports it
both at the consecration of the bread and that of the chalice. He further explains that whenever the
Church obeys this command, she announces the death of the Lord until he comes. This explanation
was needed by the gentile communities who, not being familiar with the Hebrew category of the
memorial, would not have understood the memorial dimension of the Eucharist.

52
1.2 The Theological Meaning and Content of Jesus’ Last Supper

From the biblical texts narrating Jesus’ Last Supper, we can deduce that He instituted the Eucharist
during the Jewish Passover. In spite of the difficulties in reconciling St. John’s chronology of Jesus’ passion
and death with the chronology of the synoptic Gospels, the idea of Jesus having instituted the Eucharist
during an ordinary kind of supper, not the Passover, seems irreconcilable with the information that the
Synoptic Gospels offer regarding this event. An understanding of the rite of the Jewish Passover, and of its
significance, could, therefore, be very helpful for a better comprehension of the words that Jesus
pronounced, and the gestures that he performed, during the institution of the Eucharist.

1.2.1 The Rite and the Significance of the Jewish Passover.

The Jews used to celebrate the Passover every year, in memory of their liberation from Egypt. They
understood this liberation to be not merely a political event, but, rather, a powerful intervention of God in
the history of salvation. The annual remembrance of this liberation was united to the offering of a sacrifice
of fellowship, whose rite is described in the book of Exodus (see Ex 12:1-14; 21-27). “This is a day you are
to commemorate (zikkaron); for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a
lasting ordinance,” reads the sacred text (Ex 12:14).

With time, the Jewish people started to celebrate the major events of salvation during the night of the
Passover. The Passover was a memorial of creation, and of the origin of the People of God and of their
liberation from slavery in Egypt. It was also an announcement of the last day, that is, of the day of perfect
and eternal liberation. In the time of Jesus, the Jewish celebration of the Passover consisted of four parts:
introductory rites; the paschal proclamation; the supper and the blessing after supper, and concluding rites.4

a) The introductory rites consisted of the blessing; the drinking of the first chalice, over which the
head of the family would first recite the blessing (beraka); the purification of hands and the consumption of
the fist dish (consisting of bitter herbs dipped in vinegar and a kind of marmalade referred to as haroset).

b) For the proclamation of the Pasch, the head of the family, asked by the youngest child, would
explain the symbolism of the paschal meal being celebrated (see Ex 12:25-26). Afterwards would be sung
the first Hallel and the beraka of redemption. They would then drink the second chalice, the haggada.

c) The third part would begin with a second purification of hands. The head of the family would then
recite the blessing over the bread, break it and give a piece to each person, and each one would consume his
piece (this seems to relate to the words and gestures of Jesus reported by Lk 22:19-20). They would then
each the paschal lamb and wash the hands again. They would then fill the third chalice – “the chalice of the
blessing.” The head of the family would then recite the Birkat hammazon, a prayer of blessing specific for
the paschal night. He would then recite the blessing over the third chalice, and they would all drink (this
seems to relate to the gestures and words of Jesus reported by Lk 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25).

d) In the concluding rites, they would fill the fourth chalice, sing the second part of the Hallel, drink
the chalice and conclude the supper. This conclusion seems to relate to Mk 14:26.
4
See Ángel García-Ibáñez, La Eucaristía, Don y Misterio: Tratado Histórico-Teológico sobre el Misterio Eucarístico (Pamplona:
EUNSA, 2009), 57–61.
53
1.2.2 The Absolute Novelty of Jesus’ Supper

The narratives of the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians clearly indicate that Jesus instituted the
Eucharist during a Passover meal. The same narratives also clearly indicate, though, that Jesus did not
follow the then-current Jewish rite to the letter. Rather, he performed gestures and pronounced
words that were not used by the Jews. Concretely, the sacrificial offering of his own body and blood;
the invitation to eat his flesh and drink his blood; the command to the apostles to continually
celebrate the rite he had instituted, in his memory, are absolute novelties, and the declaration of the
messianic and eschatological value of the meal he had celebrated.

a) The Body given up, and the Blood poured out, for many. The paschal lamb was the central
element in the Jewish Passover. In Jesus’ Last Supper, however, no mention is made of this lamb. Rather,
the central element in Jesus’ meal is the double rite that he performed over the bread and the wine, with its
fundamental significance.

Regarding the bread, Matthew tells us that “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when
he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body’” (Mt
26:26). Luke’s narrative adds the words “... given for you ...” (Lk 22:19). In saying “this [τουτο] is my
body,” Jesus is referring to the reality which he has in his hands. There are no sufficient grounds for
affirming that here Jesus is using the verb “is” in a metaphorical sense, as, for example, when he said
“I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) or in other similar locutions (see, for examples, Mt 13:37-38; Jn 10:7-9).
In the Eucharistic formula, unlike in the other instances, Jesus uses, as the subject of the phrase, a
demonstrative pronoun (“this”), which lays emphasis on the reality that he has in the hands.

Many exegetes see in the word “body (σωμα),” used in the institution narratives, a Greek rendering
of the Aramaic word bisra (flesh) which is the one that Jesus would have used. Jesus had already used this
word when promising the gift of the Eucharist, as reported by Jn 6:51 (“the bread that I will give is my
flesh”). When the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians were being written, it would have been inconvenient to use
the word flesh (σαρχ), because of its negative connotations (human weakness and inclination to sin). John
(Jn 6:51: “This bread is my flesh”), instead, retained it because he was writing at a time when the Docetists
were denying the Incarnation, and he had to clearly affirm that the Word really became “flesh.” By
affirming that “this is my body,” or “this is my flesh,” Jesus affirmed the sacramental identity between
“this” and “my flesh/body.”

In describing his body as “given for you,” Jesus highlights the sacrificial-redemptive dimension of
the Eucharist, relating it with the sacrifice he was to make the next day at Calvary: “given” means “offered,”
“offered in sacrifice.” The word διδομενον (given), used in the Greek, translates an Aramaic word which
would have meant “which is given,” “which is going to be given” or “which will be given.” When
understood as “which is going to be given” or “which will be given,” the relation of the Last Supper with
the Cross is highlighted, for it was on, on Friday, at the Cross that Jesus would give up his life for us. In this
case the sacrificial value of the Eucharist comes out well, as making present (on this case, at the Last
Supper, making present by anticipation) the sacrifice of the Cross. The same sacrificial value of the
Eucharist comes out even more clearly when the participle is understood as “which is given,” for , in this

54
case, it is understood that Jesus is already offering his life for us, by making present that sacrifice which he
will make on Good Friday.

Jesus does not say “given to you” but, rather, “given for you.” It is evident, therefore, that he is not
talking merely about the nourishment given to us but, in the first place, of the offering made for us to God
the Father. The Eucharist, therefore, is not only a banquet; it is, in the first place, a sacrifice.

When Jesus describes his body as “given for you,” what does he mean by “you?” To answer this
question, it is important to have in mind the discourse in which he promised the Eucharist. Then, he said: “ I
am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is
my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51). It is clear, therefore, that “for you” here must
be understood in the same sense as “for many” in the words that Jesus pronounced over the chalice,
describing his blood as “poured out for many” (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24). “For many” or “for the multitude” is a
Hebrew expression used, for instance, in Isaiah 52 and 53. In Is 52:13-15 it means “for the nations,” while
in Is 53 it means “for the Israelite majority.”5 In using it in the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus is indicating
the sacrificial nature of his gift, in connection with the sacrifice of the Servant of Yahweh of whom Isaiah
speaks. He is also indicating the openness of salvation to all men through his redemptive sacrifice. This
salvation, however, does not arise naturally in men but, rather, is effectively attained by incorporation to
Christ through faith and the sacraments. “For many,” therefore, does not mean “for all.”

“Then [Lk 22:20 writes “after the supper;” see also 1 Cor 11:25] he took a cup, and when he had
given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which
is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’” (Mt 26:27-28). With the affirmation “this is my blood of
the covenant,” Jesus indicates that that which is present in the chalice is his blood, with which blood the
New Covenant is sealed. In addition to the affirmation of the ontological identity of his blood as the reality
present in the chalice, Jesus is declaring that the prophecies of a New Covenant are now fulfilled in his
blood.

The description of his blood as “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” brings out the idea
of an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the many. This expiatory dimension of Jesus’ death is indicated in
all the four institution narratives of Eucharist, and also in the discourse at Caperrnaum (see Jn 6:51). It is,
therefore, by no means an invention of the Church but, rather, it is clearly and firmly attested to by Holy
Scripture.

Jesus’ offering of his body and blood in two distinct rites during the Eucharist has a particular
significance. It is not merely an indication of the entirety of his person, in the sense of “body and blood”
meaning “everything.” Where that the case, Jesus would have given himself entirely under the species of
bread, and entirely under the species of wine, which would leave open the question of why he performed
two distinct rites, and not a single one. It seems more plausible, therefore, to affirm that the double
consecration is indicates Jesus’ giving of himself in the moment of his death, in which his body is separated
from his blood. This understanding is backed by the use of the flesh-blood binomial ( dual term expression)
in 1 Corinthians and in the Letter to the Hebrews.

5
See Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K: William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
2012), 398.
55
 b) With the invitation to eat the flesh and drink the blood (see Mt 26:26,27), Jesus is offering his
flesh as true food, and his blood as true drink, to men, for their salvation and eternal life (see Jn 6:51-52).
This invitation indicates that the Eucharist has the dimension of a fraternal banquet, for Christians to
participate together in Christ’s sacrifice. In fact, entering into communion with the flesh and blood of the
sacrificial victim implies participating in the benefits of the sacrifice. In this sense, the Eucharist, like the
Jewish offering of the Paschal Lamb, is a sacrifice of participation, with the absolute novelty, however, that
now it is not a lamb that is offered but, rather, Jesus offers his very self.

c) According to Luke and Paul, Jesus commanded his disciples to do what he had done, in his
memory: “Do this in remembrance of me,” he said (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24,25). This commandment only
applies to the new rite that Jesus had celebrated. It indicates that he had actually instituted it to be repeated
continually. The Eucharist, celebrated that day by Jesus, was not to remain an isolated event but, rather, was
to be celebrated incessantly throughout the centuries to come, in his remembrance. This command to
celebrate the Eucharist, furthermore, included the concession of the power to do so.

At the beginning of the 20th century, some non-Catholic authors denied Jesus’ institution of the
Eucharist, arguing that Matthew, an eye-witness of the Last Supper, did not mention the command to repeat
the rite which Jesus had celebrated, and neither did Mark, disciple of St. Peter. They argued that Paul’s
testimony in 1 Corinthians was unreliable, since he was not an eye-witness, and neither was Luke’s
testimony which – they argued – totally depended on Paul (St. Luke was a disciple of St. Paul). Besides, the
text in which the command was reported by Luke misses in some codices. Furthermore, St. John, in his
Gospel, does not make any reference to the institution of the Eucharist.

The Catholic exegetes, however, defend the authenticity of Jesus’ celebration of the Eucharist and of
his command to the Apostles to repeat it in his memory. First, while Matthew and Mark do not report the
words “Do this in memory of me,” they report those others: “take and eat” (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22) and “drink
... all of you” (Mt 26:27). By these words Jesus commanded the Church of all times to eat his flesh and to
drink his blood in the Eucharist. In this way, he declared his intention that the Eucharist should be
celebrated until the end of time. Others consider, moreover, that the phrase “Do this in memory of me,”
reported by Luke and Paul, might have been transmitted as a rubric that was not read in the liturgical
celebration, for which reason Matthew and Mark do not report it, but which was followed everywhere. For
those who would claim that St. Paul had invented the Eucharist, attentive reading shows that he does not
claim to have received the Eucharistic doctrine directly from the Lord. Rather, his words in 1 Cor 11:23
refer to the authentic tradition which, through the teaching of the Apostles, he received from the Lord.
Regarding Lk 11:19-20, at present there are no doubts as to its authenticity. Finally, while St. John does not
report the institution of the Eucharist, he reports its promise in chapter 6 of his Gospel. The analysis of his
texts indicates, furthermore, that the Johannine Gospel was addressed to Christians who well knew of the
institution of the Eucharist, for which reason there was no need to report it again. In brief, it is clear that the
New Testament Christians used to meet to celebrate the Eucharist, and they did so with the firm conviction
that they were obeying the Lord’s command.

With regard to the content of the command, the Church’s Tradition has always held that it requires
doing and remembering. The command to “do this” requires the performance (“the doing”) of an action,
whose content (“this”) is deduced from the context. Essentially, it consists in repeating what Jesus had just
56
done, that is, repeating the gestures and words that he had just performed, as St. Paul testifies when he
mentions the command at the end of each of the two rites. Furthermore, the command to “do” also refers to
the eating of Jesus’ flesh and the drinking of his blood in the Eucharist. Hence, the command requires that
Christians should celebrate the Eucharist and consume the Lord’s Body and Blood in Holy Communion.

Jesus commanded the Church to celebrate the Eucharist in “αναμνησις” (“remembrance/memory”) of

him. However, he made this command in a Jewish religious context in which the remembrance par
excellence was the celebration of the Passover. Now, during the celebration of the Jewish Pasch, the Lamb
constituted a memorial (zikkaron) which did not merely bring the salvific events celebrated to the mind, but,
rather, enabled those who participated in the Passover to actually participate in those events. Understood
against this background, therefore, it is clear that Jesus’ command does not imply merely psychological
remembering of his person and sacrifice but, rather, making him really, objectively, present with his
sacrifice, and really participating in it.

d) “I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it
new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mt 26:29; see also Mk 14:25; Lk 22:15-28). With this declaration,
Jesus foretold the perfect fulfilment of the Passover in the glory of heaven. For this reason, Christians have
always recognised the Eucharist as a foretaste of the heavenly Banquet. For the same reason, at the Mass the
Church always intensifies her prayer for the coming of the Kingdom of God, as she eagerly awaits the
glorious return of her Lord.

This eschatological aspect of the Eucharist is also manifested in St. Paul’s declaration: “whenever
you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). These
words were certainly not pronounced by Jesus. They are, rather, St. Paul’s qualified commentary on the
mystery of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a sacramental proclamation – that is, one which makes really
present – of Christ’s person and his saving work. Jesus’ death is made present not simply as a historical
event of the past but, rather, as his redemptive sacrifice. In declaring Jesus’ death, however, St. Paul
immediately adds “until he comes.” Thus, he inseparably includes his resurrection and glorification as well.
As such, in the Eucharist the entire Paschal Mystery is celebrated.

1.3. The Eucharist in Other New Testament Texts

In addition to the four institution narratives, the New Testament offers teaching regarding the
Eucharist in several other texts, especially in the sixth chapter of Johannine Gospel and in the Pauline
letters.

1.3.1 The Eucharist in Chapter 6 of the Gospel According to St. John

John 6:26-58 presents a long discourse of Jesus concerning the “bread of life.” Verses 26-35 present
the announcement of the true heavenly bread; verses 36-47 stress the necessity of faith in Christ, while
verses 48-58 present Jesus as the “bread of life” come down from heaven, who offers himself to men as
food for eternal life. Verses 59-71 present the reactions of Jesus’ disciples and other listeners to his promise,
and revelation concerning Jesus’ identity.

57
 In verses 26-47, Jesus announces the gift of the true food from heaven, and insists on the need of
faith in him, as he prepares his listeners for the revelation of his own flesh and blood as true food and drink
for eternal life. He begins by rebuking the multitude for failing to understand the true meaning of the sign of
the multiplication of the loaves, narrated in Jn 6:1-15. Limiting themselves to the satisfaction of their
physical hunger, they have not appreciated the need for that food which lasts for eternal life. This food,
unlike the manna which the Israelites ate in the desert, but afterwards died, preserves from everlasting
hunger and from everlasting thirst. Jesus invites his listeners to fulfil God’s will by putting their faith in the
Son of Man, whom the Father has sent, and who will give them the bread of life eternal.

In verses 48-58, Jesus declares that he himself is the true bread which came down from heaven. He
promises to satisfy forever the hunger and quench forever the thirst of those who come to him. He declares
his flesh to be true food, and his blood to be true drink, for everlasting life for those who, drawn by the
Father, come to him. He promises to raise them up on the last day. In declaring: “the bread that I will give
for the life of the world is my flesh” (Jn 6:51) Jesus pre-announces his sacrificial death: he was to give his
own body for the salvation of men. In verses 53-58, he makes it clear that whoever would not eat his flesh
and drink his blood, would not have eternal life.

Only in the light of the Last Supper does this promise of Jesus find its full significance. In fact, many
exegetes see in this discourse a reference to the liturgical tradition concerning the flesh of the Lord. John
would have had this tradition in mind when redacting the Fourth Gospel. The reference to flesh and blood
clearly brings to mind the double sacrificial offering of his body and blood, testified to in all the four Gospel
narratives of the institution of the Eucharist (see Mat 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25).

The realism of Jesus’ offering of his own flesh as food and his blood as drink to men is indicated by
the reaction of his listeners, and by his response to that reaction. The Jews, whose religion could never
tolerate any talk of cannibalism, complained: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (Jn 6:52).
Instead of correcting them for having misunderstood him, Jesus insisted all the more on the need to
understand his words literally, and to eat his flesh and drink his blood (verses 53-58). This response is very
difference from that which he made on occasions when his listeners had misunderstood him, for examples,
when his disciples had not understood that he did not mean “the yeast of the Pharisees and Saducees”
literally (see Mt 16:6-12); the new birth in water and the Spirit (see Jn 3:4-6); the food which he eats (see Jn
4:32,34), and others.

The epilogue (verses 59-71) of the discourse clarifies any remaining doubts and questions regarding
the meaning of Jesus’ words, and shows the attitude with which the Church has always received them. Jesus
reaffirms his divine origin and announces his death and resurrection, and thus assures his listeners of the
truth of his teaching and promise (see verses 60-62). He clarifies that his words are not to be understood in a
purely material sense: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you
are spirit and life” (Jn 6:63-64). Peter’s response, on behalf of all the disciples, presents the attitude with
which the Church of all times has received Jesus’ teaching and his promise, that is, with faith and
obedience: “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and
know that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn 6:69).

58
1.3.2 The Eucharist in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus

After St. Peter’s discourse on the day of Pentecost, St. Luke tells us that “those who welcomed his
message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added” (Acts 2:41). He, then, goes
on to describe the kind of life which those first Christians lived: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’
teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). A little further on, he adds
that “Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their
food with glad and generous hearts” (Acts 2:46).

In itself, the expression “breaking of bread” would not necessarily have any liturgical-religious
meaning. However, in the Jewish cultural-religious context, it referred to a rite performed at the beginning
of a family meal taken in a context of prayer. In the New Testament, it has a very specific meaning: it
indicates the specifically Christian banquet – the Eucharist celebrated in remembrance of Jesus (see Mt
26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24). The Eucharistic meaning of this expression here (in Acts 2:42,46)
is further indicated by the way St. Luke highlights it. Indeed, it would be superfluous to write, with respect
to a merely ordinary meal, that the first Christians “devoted themselves ... to the breaking of bread,” and
“Day by day ... they broke the bread.” Taking ordinary meals is a daily action of all humans and, therefore,
there would be no need to mention it as an outstanding act of the first Christians, and to tell us, as if it were
surprising, that they devoted themselves to it “day by day.” If St. Luke so highlights this expression,
therefore, it is because it has a specific liturgical-religious meaning: the celebration of the Eucharist.

There are some other indications that the expression “breaking of bread” is a reference to the
Eucharist. The first of these is the way St. Luke relates it with gladness of heart (see Acts 2:46). This
gladness seems to refer to the joyful hope of the Eschatological Banquet (see Mt 26:29; Lk 22:15-18). The
second indication is the fact that St. Luke uses this expression in a liturgical context in another text (Acts
20:11). Finally, the fact, accepted by many exegetes, that a synchronic reading of Acts 2:42 seems to
describe the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist in the first Christian communities, beginning with the
Liturgy of the Word (the Apostles’ teaching), followed by a fraternal banquet, similar to the Last Supper
during which Jesus instituted the Eucharist, then the rite of the breaking of bread (the rite of the Eucharistic
consecration and Communion), and, finally, prayers – psalms, canticles hymns – of thanksgiving and praise.

Another mention of the Eucharist in Acts comes in 20:7-12. St. Luke narrates that “On the first day
of the week, when we met to break bread ...” (Acts 20:7). He then mentions a long teaching that St. Paul
gave, and a youth who dosed, fell down and died, and was raised again by St. Paul. Afterwards he describes
the celebration of the Eucharist by St. Paul. The “first day of the week” is also used in Lk 24:1 and Jn
20:1,19.

Elsewhere, the Eucharist appears in 1 Cor 10:14-22 and 11:20-34. In 1 Cor 10:14-22, St. Paul
discourages the eating of food sacrificed to idols. He teaches the Corinthians that they cannot partake both
of the table of the Lord and that of demons. He shows that the Eucharist is fount of the unity of the Church.
In the second text (1 Cor 11:20-34), St. Paul brings out the gravity of sacrilegious communion.

59
2. The Eucharist in the Church’s Tradition

There is an abundance of texts, right from the first centuries, which testify to the faith and practice of
Christians with regard to the Eucharist. The study of these testimonies evidences the unchanging faith of the
Church, together with the developments in theological reflection and in the form of the liturgical
celebration, that there have been over time, regarding this mystery.

2.1 Patristic Testimonies Regarding the Eucharist

Patristic writings regarding the Eucharist already come with the Didache in the first century, and the
letters of Sts. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Ireneaus in the second century. The third and fourth
centuries offer us testimonies of several contributors from both the Alexandrian and Antioquene schools,
and from the Latin West as well.

2.1.1 The Eucharist in the First and Second-Century Fathers

At the beginning, Christians celebrated the Eucharist in their private homes, in an atmosphere
characterised by conviviality. Soon, however, they established clear distinctions between ordinary meals
and the properly liturgical celebration. The Eucharistic celebration would eventually abandon the private
homes and be taken to the basilicas after the Edict of Milan in the year 313.

The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is one of the earliest extra-biblical Christian
writings, probably of the first century (c. 90-100). In chapters 9-10, this document presents some blessings
of bread and wine, but it is not clear that they refer to the Eucharist rather than to ordinary food. In chapter
14, however, it refers to the Eucharist and the Christian Sunday.

St. Ignatius of Antioch († 107), on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, wrote letters in which he
particularly highlights the ecclesial dimension of the Eucharist, together with the real presence of Christ and
the saving effects of this sacrament. He refers to the Eucharist as a “gift of God,” “medicine of
immortality,” “Body and Blood of Christ.” He describes the unity of the other ministers and the faithful
around the bishop during the celebration of the Eucharist, showing that the Eucharist is closely related to the
unity of the Church.

St. Justin Martyr († 163/7) describes the celebration of the Eucharist on two occasions: during the
Easter Vigil, in which it is celebrated in continuity with Baptism and Confirmation, and on Sunday (“the
day of the sun”). He highlights the role of the president and of the other ministers. He affirms the bread and
wine as being consecrated through the prayer of thanksgiving, after which they become “eucharistised”
bread and wine. St. Justine affirms that the Eucharist has its origin in the Last Supper. He mentions the
memorial-sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, and affirms that the eucharistised bread and wine are the very
flesh and blood of the Word incarnate.

St. Irenaeus († 202) cites the Eucharist as proof of the goodness of material creation. He teaches that
bread and wine are converted into the Eucharist, that is, into the Body and Blood of the Lord, through the
invocation of the Word of God.

60
2.1.2 The Eucharist in the Greek Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries

The Eastern (Greek) Fathers had a platonic philosophical background. This background tended to
affect their interpretations of the revealed truths in one way or another, depending on whether they were of
the Alexandrian or the Antioquene school.

The key to the theology of the Alexandrian Fathers, including Clement, Origenes, Athanasius, Cyril,
Eusebius of Cesarea, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, is the Incarnation. This is true also
in their theology of the Eucharist. These Fathers identify the Eucharist as the preferred mode of
communication with the Logos. However, rather than in corporeal communion, these Fathers declare the
most perfect communion with the Logos to take place in spiritual union.

Among the Antioquene Fathers, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem
stand out for their contributions to Eucharistic theology. Their point of emphasis is Jesus’ humanity and its
concrete history. They particularly focus on Jesus’ redemptive work and, especially, his Paschal Mystery.
They understand the Eucharist as the sacrament of Jesus’ humanity and his sacrifice. Through the epiclesis
(invocation of the Holy Spirit) and the anamnesis (memorial) of the Lord’s sacrifice, the bread and wine
undergo a metabole (transformation). Thus, Jesus is made really present with his sacrifice, and we are able
to participate in it. St. John Chrysostom, traditionally recognised as the Doctor of the Eucharist (Doctor
Eucharistiae), affirms the conversion of the Eucharistic elements, and emphasises the anamnesis, which
makes possible the real identity between Christ’s sacrifice and the Eucharistic sacrifice celebrated by the
Church. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth and fifth of his Mystagogical Catecheses, describes the
Eucharistic celebration from the offertory onwards, affirms Christ’s real presence, and highlights the role of
the Holy Spirit in bringing about this presence. Theodore of Mopsuestia makes an allegorical commentary
on the different parts of the Mass, relating each one of them to certain events in the history of salvation.

2.1.3 The Eucharist in the Latin Fathers

In the Latin West, the most outstanding contributors to Eucharistic theology in the third to the fifth
centuries were Tertullian († 222), St. Cyprian of Carthage († 258), St. Ambrose of Milan († 397) and St.
Augustine of Hippo († 430).

Tertullian uses different names for the Eucharist. Although he uses such expressions as “figure” and
“representation,” which could seem to deny the real presence of Christ, he actually affirms it. He likewise
affirms the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. He cites the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as
evidence of the reality of Christ’s body. He declares that Christ’s presence remains in the consecrated
species even after the Eucharistic celebration.

St. Cyprian, dedicates his Letter 63, directed to Cecilius, bishop of Biltha, to defending the use of
wine as matter for the celebration of the Eucharist. The saint was arguing against the hydroparastatas or
acuarienses, who were attempting to celebrate the Eucharist with bread and water only. He argues that since
in the Eucharist we make remembrance of the Lord’s Passion, we should do what he did. On the whole, the
letter highlights the memorial and sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist; the presence of Christ in the

61
consecrated bread and wine; the symbolism of mixing water with the wine, and how the Eucharist fortifies
Christians in their spiritual struggle and in the face of martyrdom.6

St. Ambrose in his On the Sacraments and in On the Mysteries affirms Christ’s real presence in the
Eucharist. He affirms that it is the words of Christ, pronounced ecclesially, that change the bread and wine
into the body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist makes present the redemptive work that Christ carried out
through his suffering and death. When we participate in it, we participate in its fruits, receiving the
forgiveness of sins and supernatural nourishment. He employs the term “substance,” which signifies that
which stands beneath. In reference to the Eucharist, he uses this term to express the concrete reality, which
comes from God and depends on God.

St. Augustine sometimes uses symbolic language, while at other times he uses realistic language,
when referring to the Eucharist. Using realistic language, he affirms Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist,
teaching that the bread and wine become, upon being consecrated, the body and blood of Christ. Using
symbolic language, however, he distinguishes between the Eucharistic bread, as the sign, and the historical
body of Christ as the ipsa res (the thing itself). He refers to the ecclesial community as the “true” body of
Christ, while the Eucharist would be the “mystical” body of Christ.

2.2 The Eucharist in the Middle Ages

The Mediaeval epoch is a particularly important one in the history of Eucharistic theology. It is an
epoch that saw much deepening of the comprehension of the New Testament texts concerning the Eucharist,
and the codification of liturgical texts. The papal Mass had great influence on the theological understanding
of the Eucharist in the 6th to 8th centuries. The controversies of the 9th to the 11th centuries greatly contributed
to the clarification of the theological understanding of the Eucharist.

2.2.1 Eucharistic Theology in the 9th to 11th Centuries

In the period running from the 9th to the 11th centuries, Bl. Amalarius of Metz, St. Paschasius
Radbertus, Ratramnus of Corbie, Berengar of Tours and Lanfranc of Bec led the theological quest for what
the Eucharist is. A heated controversy developed, however, regarding Christ’s presence in this sacrament.
This controversy took time to resolve, and had a lasting impact on our understanding of the Eucharist.

In his writings, Bl. Amalarius of Metz († c. 850) affirms, in numerous occasions, that the body,
present in the type or sacrament of the Eucharist, is identical to the body of Jesus, the eternal priest.
However, the blessed mostly occupies himself with the allegorical interpretation of the liturgical prayers and
rites. Thus, he presents the Mass mostly as a dramatic representation of the life of Christ and, more
particularly, of his suffering, death and resurrection. Amalarius’ excessive use of allegories was strongly
opposed by St. Agobard, bishop of Lyon († 840) and the deacon Florus of Lyon († 860). Even then, many
theologians of the time continued to follow Amalarius’ style in explaining the Eucharist. Unfortunately,
sometimes these theologians were so absorbed in the allegorical interpretations that they did not make any

6
See Saint Cyprian of Carthage, “Epistle LXIII,” in The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and Martyr: With the Council
of Carthage, on the Baptism of Heretics; to Which Are Added the Extant Works of S. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona , by Saint
Cyprian of Carthage and Saint Pacian (London: John Henry Parker, 1844), 181–194.
62
efforts to come up with a realist, symbolic-ontological, understanding of the relationship between the Mass
and Christ’s redemptive sacrifice.

St. Paschasius Radbertus († 859), in his Liber de corpora et sanguine Domini (written between 831
and 833), affirmed, following St. Ambrose, that the Eucharist is the true flesh of Christ, and that in it the
sacrifice of Christ is made really present but in mystery. He affirms that what there is in the Eucharist is not
mere figure but, rather, that very flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered and died, and rose again.
He explains that by the power of Christ’s words, and by the action of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are
converted in to the Body and Blood of the Lord. The saint distinguishes between the figura (figure) and the
veritas (truth). The figure would be that which our senses detect, while the truth would be the profound,
secret, reality, which we only know by faith. In this sense the flesh and blood of Christ are present both in
figure and in truth in the Eucharist. Our author refers to the Eucharist as the corpus mysticum (mystical
Body), and the Church as the corpus verum (true Body), of Christ.

Ratramnus of Corbie († 868), who, like St. Paschasius, was a monk at Corbie, wrote, in 851, his
Liber de corpora et sanguine Domini. He affirms that when the faithful receive Communion, they receive
the body and blood of Christ in figure (figura) but not in truth (veritas). It is true that Ratramnus’ use of the
double expression figura et veritas is somewhat different from that of St. Paschasius, in that for him veritas
does not refer only to the profound reality in the sacrament, but also to its presentation to our senses. As
such, when he denies that in Holy Communion we receive Christ’s body in truth, what he intends to say is
that in the Eucharist the body of Christ is not immediately evident to the senses, nor is it present in the same
way as it is in heaven. Even then, it is true that Ratramnus does not really recognise the substantial presence
of Our Lord in the consecrated species of bread and wine. He only recognises a dynamic presence, that is, a
presence of the Lord’s salvific power, in the Eucharist. He moves in the same line with regard to the
sacrificial dimension of the Mass: rather than the real presence of Our Lord’s sacrifice, he only admits a
symbolic-figurative representation, by which the memory of the Lord’s sacrifice is kept alive in the
community.

St. Paschasius Radbertus strongly opposed the ideas of Ratramnus. In this effort, the saint was
joined, among others, by Hincmar of Rheims († 882), Remegius of Auxerre († 908) and the abbots of
Cluny, particularly St. Odo of Cluny († 942). These ones eventually worked out the concept of the
sacramental (true, real and substantial) presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Several other theologians,
instead, such as Gottschalk of Orbais († 867), Raban Maur († 856), John Scotus Eriugena († 877) and
Drutmarus of Stravelot aligned themselves with Ratramnus. These authors’ idea of the figurative (spiritual,
virtuous) presence of the Lord in the Eucharist would later reach its climax in Berengar of Tours.

Berengar of Tours († 1088) affirmed that the Eucharist, being a sacrament, is “a sacred sign,” “a
visible figure of invisible grace.” He understood the concept of sign to mean that which points to another
reality. In this way, after consecration the bread and wine would point to the reality of Christ’s body and
blood, they themselves not being in any way converted into that body and blood but, rather, remaining bread
and wine. Berengar also considered the Mass to be a merely figurative sacrifice, a rite that helps us to
subjectively remember the Lord’s sacrifice.

63
 Lanfranc of Bec († 1089) led the opposition to the ideas of Berengar. Others that opposed Berengar
were Adelman of Liege († 1061), Durandus of Troarn († 1088), Hugh of Langres († 1050) and Guitmund of
Aversa († 1095). Lanfrac affirmed that the earthly substances of bread and wine, when sanctified by the
prayer of the priest at Mass, are miraculously converted into the essence (essentia) of the body and blood of
the Lord, but the appearance (species) of the earthly substances remains. He held that in the Mass Christ’s
death is not represented in a merely figurative way but, rather, it is really present, Christ being immolated
under the visible species of bread and wine. Lanfranc did not, however, fully appreciate the numerical
identity between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass.

The Church’s Magisterium was obliged to intervene in the controversy, because of the danger that
Berengar’s ideas posed to the faith of Christians. Various synods asked him to renounce his ideas. After
thirty years of wrangling, the Roman Synod of the year 1079 obliged him to confess that

the bread and wine which are laid on the altar are, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the
words of our Redeemer, converted in their substance into the real and true life-giving flesh and blood
of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration they are the real body of Christ that was born
of the Virgin and died on the cross for the salvation of the world and sits at the Father’s right hand,
and the real blood of Christ which split from his side, and that they are flesh and blood not merely in
the form of a sign through the power of the sacrament but in their actual nature through the power of
the sacrament.7

This text is of great importance. Posterior Magisterial teachings have always spoken in analogous
terms, stressing the substantial conversion that takes place at the consecration, and the true, real and
substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist.8

On the whole, Berengar’s ideas provoked a very strong reaction at all levels in the Church. Many
practices were introduced, during the Mass and outside it, to help Christians profess and renew their faith in
the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. During Mass, the practice of raising the sacred species
high for the adoration of the faithful after the consecration was introduced, together with the placing of a
candle on the altar, the ringing of the bell, incensing and genuflecting. After Mass the Eucharist was no
longer kept in the sacrarium in the sacristy but, rather, in a Tabernacle with a burning lamp besides it. In the
thirteenth century, the feast of Corpus Christi was introduced, on which the Eucharist was adored in solemn
procession and with benediction. St. Thomas Aquinas composed, for this feast, the great Eucharistic hymns
Lauda Sion Salvatorem, Pange lingua, O salutaris Hostia, Sacris sollemniis, Verbum supernum and Adoro
te devote.9

2.2.2 The Eucharist in 12th and 13th Centuries

The 12th century witnessed the birth of scholastic theology, presented in the Books of the Sentences
and the Summas theologica. The leading theologians that occupied themselves with the Eucharist in this
period included Algerius of Liege († 1131), Hugh of St. Victor († 1141), Gregory of Bergamo († 1146),
Peter Lombard († 1160), Alan of Lille († c. 1203), Peter of Poitiers († 1205) and Lotarius of Segni, who
eventually became Pope Innocent III († 1216). These theologians reaffirmed the presence in truth, and not

7
Theo Hermans, The Conference of the Tongues (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), 95.
8
See García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 195–196.
9
See Ibid., 218–219.
64
merely in figure, of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist. They transformed St. Augustine’s sacramentum
– res sacramenti diad into a triad, that is, sacramentum tantum (the visible sign), res et sacramentum (the
reality contained in the visible sign) and res tantum (the grace that is signified by, but not contained in, the
visible sign). They invented the term “transsubstantiatio” to explain the complete conversion of the bread
and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. With regard to the sacrificial dimension of the
Mass, some adopted the Bl. Amalarius’ allegoric explanation; others the realist-sacramental one of St.
Paschasius Radbertus, while others adopted Ratramnus’ figurative-commemorative explanation. However,
none accepted Berengar’s purely symbolic-dynamic interpretation.

The 13th century witnessed the first use of the term transsubstantiatio by the Church’s Magisterium
(by the Fourth Lateran Council, of the year 1215), and the theological syntheses of the great scholastics of
that time. Among these were William of Auvergne († 1249), Alexander of Hales († 1245), St. Bonaventure
(† 1274), St. Thomas Aquinas († 1274) and St. Albert the Great († 1280). These theologians brought the
Eucharistic doctrine inherited from the previous epochs into more systematic expositions. That of St.
Thomas Aquinas is undoubtedly the best among these scholastic syntheses of Eucharistic theology.

St. Thomas’ devotes questions 73 to 83 of the Third Part of his Summa Theologiae to the sacrament
of the Eucharist. He considers transubstantiation to be a wondrous and singular change, to which nature
offers no comparison. The substances of bread and wine are the terminus a quo (starting point) of this
change, while the body and the blood of Christ are its terminus ad quem (end point). Unlike in the changes
that nature offers, in the transubstantiation (1) there is no accidental change whatsoever and (2) nothing of
the prime matter found in the bread and the wine remains as underlying substrate of the change. Rather, the
entire substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the body of our Lord, without any alteration
whatsoever in our Lord’s body. Similarly, the entire substance of the wine is converted into the substance of
the blood of our Lord, without any alteration in our Lord’s blood. The only common element between the
terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem of the transubstantiation is that in each of them there is a being,
although the two beings are different. The change is instantaneous, taking place in the precise moment in
which the priest concludes his pronunciation of the words of the consecration. The accidents of the bread
and wine remain after the transubstantiation. However, they do not inhere in our Lord’s body and blood.
Rather, God miraculously maintains them in their accidental being.

According to the Aquinate, it is only the body of our Lord that is directly present in the Eucharistic
species of the bread, and only his blood in the Eucharistic species of the wine. Nonetheless, the entire reality
of our Lord – body and blood, soul and divinity – is, by concomitance (vi concomitantiae), present in each
one of the two species and in each one of their parts, since our Lord is present without any alteration is his
being. His presence is substantial, for which reason he is present entirely, with all the accidents of his
glorious body, but in a way that is not directly perceptible to our senses.

St. Thomas did not dig as deep into the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist as he did into the
transubstantiation. Nonetheless, he affirms that the Mass is a sacrifice because (1) it is an image of Christ’s
passion, and (2) through it the faithful receive the effects of the grace which flows from the sacrifice of the
Cross.10

10
See STh, III, q. 83, a. 1, respondo.
65
2.2.3 The Eucharist in the 14th and 15th Centuries

Blessed John Duns Scotus († 1308) led the theological investigation into the mystery of the
Eucharist in the 14th century. While St. Thomas had understood the transubstantiation as a conversio
singularis (singular conversion), Bl. John Scotus understood it as a successio substantiarum (succession of
substances). Accordingly, Christ’s body and blood, without ceasing to be in heaven, begins to be where the
bread and the wine had been. The distance between heaven and the altar or tabernacle in which the Lord’s
body is, is suppressed. It is not clear, however, in the writings of the Subtle Doctor, what exactly happens to
the substance of the bread and the wine. Scotus holds that the Mass represents the sacrifice of the Cross and
applies its fruits. However, the essential sacrificial act of the sacrifice of the Mass would not be that of the
suffering Christ. Rather, it would be the offering, made by the Church through the priest, of the Eucharistic
body and blood of Christ. One difficulty here is that the sacramental identity between Mass and the sacrifice
of the Cross does not come out clearly.

The 14th and 15th century nominalists occupied themselves very extensively with the nature of
corporeal substances, paying little attention to the more central issues of the mystery of the Eucharist.
William of Ockham († 1349), Gabriel Biel († 1495) and others rejected St. Thomas’ conversion singularis
in favour of Bl. John Scotus’ successio substantiarum.11 Others, such as John Quidort of Paris († 1306)
openly accepted the theory of consubstantiation. John Quidort proposed the theory of impanation, according
to which the bread would be assumed by Christ’s body in the Eucharist, and would coexist with that body in
the person of the Word.12

John Wyclif († 1384) denied both the transubstantiation and the substantial presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. To him, Christ’s body and blood would be present sacramentaliter et virtualiter, but not
substantialiter, in the Eucharist. In Wyclif’s view, a Mass celebrated by a sinful priest is invalid. Various
synods held in London and Oxford condemned Wyclif’s doctrines. Many years after his death, the Council
of Constance (1414-1418) re-examined and condemned fourty-five propositions of his, five of which
concerned the Holy Eucharist.13

2.2.4 The Eucharist in the Protestant Reformers and in the Council of Trent

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation – Martin Luther († 1546), Ulrich Zwingli († 1531) and
John Calvin († 1564) – proposed an understanding of the Eucharist in open contradiction to the Church’s
Tradition on several points. They denied the sacrificial dimension of the Mass, its expiatory value and the
possibility of offering its fruits in favour of persons that have not participated in it. They insisted that,
according to the Scriptures, the Eucharist is, above all, “the Lord’s Supper,” a banquet. Consequently,
whenever it is celebrated, Communion should be granted to all. They opposed the worship of the Eucharist
outside the Lord’s Supper, insisting that Christ’s body and blood are present only for the purpose of being
consumed during the Lord’s supper.
11
See Thomas Osborne, “Faith, Philosophy, and the Nominalist Background to Luther’s Defense of the Real Presence,” Journal
of the History of Ideas 63, no. 1 (2002): 76–79.
12
See Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 31–
32.
13
For more on Wyclif’s condemnation at the Council of Constance, see Edith C. Tatnall, “The Condemnation of John Wyclif at
the Council of Constance,” in Councils and Assemblies, by Cuming, Studies in Church History (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1970), 209–218.
66
 The Reformers, however, did not arrive at a unanimous position regarding the nature of the Lord’s
presence in the Eucharist. On the one hand, Luther affirmed that the Lord is truly, really and substantially
present in the Eucharist. However, this presence would be by way of impanation, not transubstantiation.
Zwingli and Calvin, on the other hand, insisted that there was only a dynamic presence of the Lord in the
Eucharist, that is, a presence of his salvific power. All of them agreed, however, that the Lord’s presence in
the Eucharist does not continue once the Supper ends.14

The Council of Trent occupied itself with the Eucharist in the thirteenth session, through the Decree
and Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; in the twenty-first session, through the Doctrine
and Canons on Communion under both Species and on the Communion of Infants, and in the twenty-second
session, through the Doctrine and Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In the Decree and
Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; the Council defined the true, real and substantial
presence of Christ in the Eucharist (can. 1); the transubstantiation (can. 2); that the remission of sins is
neither the principal nor the only fruit of the Eucharist (can. 5); the real consumption of Jesus in Holy
Communion (can. 8), and the insufficiency of faith alone for the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist
(can. 11).15 In the Doctrine and Canons on Communion under both Species and on the Communion of
Infants, the Council defined that it is not obligatory for all the faithful to receive Holy Communion under
both kinds (can. 1); that in each one of the species Christ is fully and integrally present (can. 3), and that
Holy Communion is not necessary for children that have not yet attained the use of reason. 16 In the Doctrine
and Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Council defined that the Mass is a true and proper
sacrifice (can. 1); that with the words “Do this in remembrance of me” Christ instituted his Apostles as
priests and commanded them and all the priests to offer his body and blood (can. 2); the propitiatory value
of the Mass (can. 3), and the essential lawfulness of the Mass even when only the priest communicates
sacramentally (can. 8).17

2.2.5 The Eucharist after Trent

By comparison with the preceding epoch, the post-Tridentine period saw profound changes in the
liturgy of the Eucharist, changes that would last until the liturgical reform that followed Vatican II. At the
request of the Council, Pope St. Pius V issued, in 1570, the Missale Romanum, and the Rubricae generales
and a Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae. This Missal was imposed upon the entire Latin Church – with
very few exceptions – until Pope St. Paul VI’s promulgation of the new Roman Missal in 1969. The missal
of Pope St. Pius V promoted uniformity and effectively guarded against arbitrariness and the would-be
consequent errors in the celebration of the Eucharist. However, because it did not permit celebration of
Mass in any other language but Latin, many of the faithful could not actively follow the Mass. They would
often practice popular devotions, such as the recitation of the Rosary, during the Mass. To make matters
worse, the errors of Jansenism effectively made many Christians to refrain from frequent reception of Holy
Communion, an extreme which Pope St. Pius X had to affront energetically at the beginning of the twentieth
century (while beatifying him, Pope Pius XII gave the title “Pope of the Eucharist” to St. Pius X).
14
See Owen F. Cummings, Eucharistic Doctors: A Theological History (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005), 157–171.:
Thomas J. Davis, “‘The Truth of the Divine Words’: Luther’s Sermons on the Eucharist, 1521-28, and the Structure of Eucharistic
Meaning,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 2 (1999): 323–342. For a more detailed study of the Eucharistic theology of the
Reformers, see Lee Palmer Wandel, The Eucharist in the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
15
See DH 1651-1661.
16
See DH 1731-1734.
17
See DH 1751-1758.
67
 In theological debate, the authors of the period centred their efforts on explaining the sacrificial
nature of the Mass. Some authors proposed immolationist theories, while others proposed oblationist
theories. According to the immolationist theories, the Mass is a sacrifice because something is destroyed
during the Mass. This could be through the destruction of the bread and wine by the transubstantiation, or
Jesus himself dies again in some way (physical-sacramentally, virtually, morally or symbolically). The
proponents of these theories included, among others, Melchor Cano († 1560) Gabriel Vazquez († 1604),
Francisco Suarez († 1617), St. Robert Bellarmine († 1621), Leonard Lessius († 1623), John of Lugo (†
1660) and John Baptist Franzelin († 1886). According to the oblationist theories, instead, the Mass is a true
sacrifice either because during its celebration Jesus offers himself again liturgically to the Father, or the
Church offers herself liturgically to God. The leading proponents of the oblationist theories were, among
others, Pierre de Berulle († 1629), Charles of Condren († 1641), Jean Jacques Olier († 1657), Pierre Lebrun
(† 1729), Marius Lepin († 1952) and Maurice de La Taille († 1933). One defect that is common to both the
immolationist and oblationist theories is that of presenting the Mass as a new sacrifice, distinct from that of
the Cross.

Beginning with the 1920’s, some theologians started explaining the sacrificial nature of the Mass
through sacramental causality. They understood the Mass to be a sacramental memorial of the sacrifice of
the Cross. Through the analysis of Jesus’ own words and gestures during the institution of the Eucharist,
these theologians argued that Christ’s sacrifice, offered once for all on Calvary, is made really present
whenever and wherever Mass is celebrated. Among these theologians were Anscar Vonier († 1938), Odel
Casel († 1948), Charles Journet († 1975), Max Thurian († 1996) and Francois-Xavier Durrwell († 2005).
Their theories have been very helpful in explaining how the Mass is the very same sacrifice of Calvary, not
repeated but, rather, made sacramentally present on our altars to enable Christians of all times and places to
participate in it.

The Church’s Magisterium has also made many important interventions that have brought about a
profound liturgical renewal in the life of the Church and of individual Christians, helping them to participate
more consciously and actively in the Mass, and have greatly helped to deepen the theological understanding
of the mystery of the Eucharist.18 Among these interventions are Pope St. Pius X’s Decree Sacra Tridentina
Synodus (16 December 1905); Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis (29 June 1943) and his
Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947); Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium (4
December 1963); Pope St. Paul VI’s Encyclical Mysterium fidei (3 September 1965); the Sacred
Congregation for Divine Worship’s Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium (25 May 1967), the Missale
Romanum (1969), together with the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (promulgated on 3 April 1969),
and the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (23 April 2004); Pope St. John Paul II’s Letter Dominicae
Cenae (24 February 1980), his Message to the Eucharistic Congress of Lourdes (21 July 1981) and his
Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003); the Catechism of the Catholic Church (11 October
1992), and Pope Benedict XVI’s Encyclical Deus Caritas Est (25 December 2005) and his Post Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (22 February 2007).

In the ecumenical field, in the last sixty years there have been great efforts of rapprochement
between Catholics and Protestants. The efforts of the Groupe des Dombes; 19 the Faith and Order documents

18
See SC n. 14.
19
See Catherine E. Clifford, The Groupe Des Dombes: A Dialogue of Conversion (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2005).
68
of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM 1982 and 1987); 20 the works of the Anglican Roman Catholic
International Commission, and many other initiatives, have been under taken in the continuing struggle to
overcome divisions among Christians.

3. Theological Reflection

Having examined the teaching of Sacred Scripture and testimony of the Church’s Tradition
regarding the Eucharist, we would now like to make a systematic reflection on this mystery. The sacrificial
nature of the Mass, the structure of its celebration, the sacramental sign of the Eucharist, the presence of
Christ in the Eucharistic species, the ecclesial dimension of the Eucharist and the fruits of its reception are
the themes that we shall consider.

3.1 The Eucharist as the Sacrament of Christ’s Sacrifice

Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the New Covenant, offered sacrifice once for all, offering his very
self (see Heb 7:27; 9:28; 10:10), by submitting to death on the Cross, a death that culminated in his
triumphant resurrection and glorious ascension into heaven (see Phil 2:8-11). This sacrifice is made really
present on our altars whenever Mass is celebrated, as both Holy Scripture and the Church’s Tradition testify.

3.1.1 The Eucharistic Memorial in Holy Scripture

When instituting the Eucharist during the Last Supper, Jesus took bread in his hands and said: “This
is my body given for you” (Lk 22:19), and with the cup in his hands, he said: “This is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28; see Mk 14:25; Lk 22:21;
1 Cor 11:25). In saying these words, Jesus indicated that what he had in his hands (“this”) was truly his
body, truly his blood. By describing his body as “given for ...” and his blood as “poured out for ...,” he
performed a “prophetic gesture,” by which he announced the death he would suffer the next day at Calvary,
revealed its sacrificial value and made it really present. He, then, commanded his Apostles to repeat the rite
he had just instituted, in remembrance of him (see Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:22-25), which is what the Church
does whenever she celebrates Mass.

The “remembrance” that the Lord was commanding his disciples to make is not a merely subjective
remembrance. Rather, it is a “memorial,” that is, a commemoration which makes really present that which is
commemorated. In commanding them to make it, Jesus was commanding his Apostles, and the Church of
all times, to celebrate the Eucharist, by which his sacrificial death is made really present. As St. Paul
declares to the Corinthians: “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death
until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).

The Pauline text indicates, however, that the Memorial is not only of Christ’s death, but also of his
resurrection and glorification. In the New Testament, the name “Lord” (in Greek “Kyrios”) refers to Jesus
insofar as he is risen from the dead and lives forever. Hence, in using it, St. Paul indicates that the Mass is
memorial of Jesus’ resurrection as well. The addition of “until he comes” emphasises this idea, and indicates
that the Mass is memorial of Jesus’ glorification as well. However, the Pauline text primarily emphasises the
20
See Jos E. Vercruysse, “A Catholic Response to the Faith and Order Document on ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,’”
Gregorianum 69, no. 4 (1988): 663–688.
69
memorial of Jesus’ death. It is clear, therefore, that the Mass is memorial of Jesus’ death, resurrection and
glorification, but primarily of the death and, hence, the sacrifice.

3.1.2 The Eucharistic Memorial in the Church’s Tradition

Throughout her history, the Church has always affirmed the sacrificial nature of the Mass. To begin
with the Church Fathers, they explain the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist through its relation to the
sacrifice of the Cross. The Didache refers twice to it as a sacrifice; St. Justine Martyr, in his Dialogue with
Trypho, refers to it as the memorial of the Lord’s passion and of his blood; St. Cyprian refers to it as a
memorial of the sacrifice of the Cross. St. Hypolytus, Tertulian, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose equally use
expressions that indicate that the Eucharist is a true and perfect sacrifice.21

The sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist is also highlighted in all the ancient Eucharistic Prayers,
especially in the Anamnesis. These ancient prayers include The Apostolic Tradition, the Anaphora of Addai
and Mari, the Anaphora of St. James, the Anaphora of Book VIII of the “Apostolic Constitutions,” the
Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, the Anaphora of the “Euchologion of Serapion of Thumis” and the
Roman Canon.22

The Mediaeval theologians offered various explanations of the sacrificial dimension of the Mass, of
which the best comes from St. Thomas Aquinas. For St. Thomas, the Eucharist is a true sacrifice for two
reasons. Firstly, it is a sacrifice because Christ himself, the victim and priest of the sacrifice of the Cross is
present in it.23 Secondly, it is a sacrifice because “by this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit
of our Lord’s Passion.”24 He affirms that “the Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of Our Lord’s Passion, as
containing Christ crucified.”25 To avoid any berengarian figuratism, he clarifies that the Eucharist contains
“Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth.”26

When the Protestant Reformers taught that the Eucharist was no more than a banquet at which
Christians receive the good things promised by Christ, related to the Cross only insofar as the gathered
faithful remembered the Lord’s passion in faith, the Council of Trent solemnly defined that “if any one
saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else
but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.” 27 The Council further defined that “if any one saith,
that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare
commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice ... let him be
anathema.”28

From the 16th to the 20th centuries, the Catholic theologians made great efforts to explain the
sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. The immolationist and oblationist theories of the 16 th to the 19th
21
See Cuéllar, Tratado sobre los sacramentos, 217–218.
22
See García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 477.
23
See STh III, q. 83, a. 1, c.
24
STh III, q. 83, a. 1, c.: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 451.
25
STh III, q. 73, a. 5, ad 2: Ibid., 382.
26
STh III, q. 75, a. 1, c.: Ibid., 390.
27
Council of Trent, Session 22, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, can. 1: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the Sacrifice of the
Mass,” in The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Œcumenical Council of Trent: Celebrated Under the Sovereign Pontiffs,
Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV., ed. James Waterworth (London: C. Dolman, 1848), 158.
28
Council of Trent, Session 22, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, can. 1: Ibid.
70
centuries recognised the sacrificial nature of the Mass, but they considered it as an autonomous sacrifice,
different from that of the Cross. It was in the 20 th century that such theologians as Anscar Vonier, Odo
Casel, Louis Bouyer and Max Thurian came up with the sacramental doctrine of the Mass.

The recent Magisterium, often making use of this sacramental doctrine of the Mass, has made great
clarifications regarding the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. Vatican II describes the Mass as the
sacrifice of Our Lord’s body and blood, “a memorial of his death and resurrection,” 29 which he instituted “in
order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again.” 30 The
Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is ... a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes
present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.”31 Pope St. John
Paul II teaches that the Eucharist “makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice
nor does it multiply it. What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its ‘commemorative representation’
(memorialis demonstratio), which makes Christ’s one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in
time.”32 The pope also clarifies that “the Eucharistic Sacrifice makes present not only the mystery of the
Saviour’s passion and death, but also the mystery of the resurrection which crowned his sacrifice.” 33

3.1.3 The Sacramental Re-presentation of Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice

The foregoing testimonies of the Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Tradition firmly attest that the
sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are one and the same, identical, sacrifice, the difference
being in the manner of offering. “The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present
and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body.” 34

Two errors are to be particularly avoided in this regard. First, the Eucharist should not be thought of
as a merely symbolic or dramatic representation of the Lord’s Passover, whose sacrificial dimension would
not go beyond a merely psychological remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. Rather, the Eucharist is an
objective commemoration, which makes Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, offered once and for all on Calvary,
really present on the altar whenever Mass is celebrated. The second error to avoid is that of considering the
Mass as an autonomous sacrifice, different from that of Calvary. The truth, instead, is that “the sacrifice of
Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice,”35 the Mass being the sacramental re-
presentation of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice.

The numerical identity between Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary regards the priest, the altar, the
victim and the act itself of sacrificing. In both cases Jesus Christ is the priest who sacrifices, the victim that
is sacrificed and the altar upon which that victim is sacrificed. 36 At Mass, Jesus makes really present that
very same interior act through which he sacrificed himself at Calvary by accepting death in perfect
obedience to the Father’s will (see Phil 2:8).

29
SC n. 47: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 35.
30
SC n. 47: Ibid.
31
CCC, n. 1366: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 344.
32
EE n. 12: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 7. See EE n. 13.
33
EE n. 14: Ibid., 8.
34
CCC, n. 1362: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 344.
35
CCC, n. 1367: Ibid., 345.
36
The fifth Preface of Easter describes him as “the Priest, the Altar, and the Lamb of sacrifice” (OM n. 49: Congregation for
Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 624.).
71
 It is true that the manner, the time and the place of offering are different. On the Cross the offering
was bloody and it took place about two thousand years ago at Calvary. At Mass, instead, the offering is
made in a non bloody way through the ministry of priests, and it takes place every day in every place where
Mass is celebrated. Even then, this multiple offering of the Mass multiplies neither the identity nor the
efficacy – which is infinite – of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. Rather, the multiplication of the sacramental
presences of Christ’s unique sacrifice enables Christians of all times and places to participate in that
sacrifice and to share in the infinity of grace that flows from it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that Christ’s Passover “cannot remain only in the
past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is – all that he did and suffered for all men
– participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all.” 37
Because his sacrifice is forever present before God, Jesus can, with his divine power, make it present
whenever and wherever Mass is celebrated.

3.2 The Celebration of the Eucharist

When instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper, 1) Jesus gathered his disciples around
himself; 2) he dialogued with them; 3) he took bread and wine; 4) he gave thanks and pronounced the
blessing; 5) he broke the bread; 6) he gave his body to his disciples to eat, and his blood to them to
drink. It is this same structure that is repeated in every Mass, that is, 1) the coming together of the
Eucharistic Assembly and the celebration of the Introductory Rites; 2) the Liturgy of the Word; 3) the
preparation of the gifts; 4) the Eucharistic prayer; 5) the breaking of the bread and the preparation
for Communion, and 6) Communion with Jesus’ body and blood. Elements 3 to 6 are jointly referred to
as the Liturgy of the Eucharist. After the Mass, the sacrament of the Lord’s body that is left is kept
reverently and offered due worship which, although not part of the Mass, is most intimately
connected to it.

3.2.1 The Introductory Rites

The Mass begins with Christians gathering in one place for the Eucharistic Assembly, at whose
head is Christ himself.38 The Introductory Rites are then performed, which include the Entrance itself,
the priest’s Greeting of the Altar and of the gathered faithful, the Act of Penitence, the Kyrie, the
Gloria, and the Collect (Opening Prayer).39 These rites “have the character of a beginning, an
introduction, and a preparation. Their purpose is to ensure that the faithful who come together as
one, establish communion and dispose themselves properly to listen to the Word of God and to
celebrate the Eucharist worthily.”40

37
CCC, n. 1085: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 287.
38
See CCC, n. 1348.
39
See GIRM, n. 46-54.
40
GIRM, n. 46: “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” in The Roman Missal (Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa,
2011), 36.
72
3.2.2 The Liturgy of the Word

The Liturgy of the Word has several components. These include readings from the Old
Testament and/or the New Testament (Acts of the Apostles, the Letters or the Apocalypse); the
Responsorial Psalm; the Acclamation before the Gospel; the Gospel reading; the homily; the
profession of faith, and the prayer of the faithful.41

It is within the entirety of the celebration that these components have their true nature and
achieve their end. At Mass there is perfect actualization of the inspired texts of the Sacred Scriptures,
for which reason those who listen to the Word of God proclaimed at Mass recognise that the ancient
promises are being fulfilled in their hearing, and that they are participants in the Kingdom that Jesus
proclaimed. In its turn, the homily serves as the meeting point between the Word and the daily lives
of the faithful. To this Word the assembly gives assent through the recitation of the Creed. The action
of God’s Spirit and his Word in the hearts of the faithful then makes the Prayer of the faithful to spring
up from the assembly, on behalf of the entire Church and in favour of all men.

3.2.3 The Liturgy of the Eucharist

The Liturgy of the Eucharist consists of the Presentation of Offerings, followed by the
Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) and, then, the Communion Rite. We shall comment on them in that
order.

The Presentation of Offerings “should be understood in a rigorous sense, as ‘introduction’ of

the offerings into a new liturgical-sacramental situation.” 42 This theological understanding of the
presentation of offerings is based on the very prayers of the rite, which ask God that the offerings of
bread and wine be converted into food and drink of everlasting life. The Presentation can also be seen
as a symbol of the self-offering of Christians to God in union with Christ’s sacrifice. The Presentation,
however, should not by any means be understood as an independent sacrifice (independent of the
sacrifice of the Cross) made by the assembly, or as the moment in which the Church offers the
Eucharistic Sacrifice (the true Offering, that is, the moment in which the Church offers the Eucharistic
Sacrifice comes during the Eucharist Prayer, after the Consecration and the Anamnesis).43

The Anaphora is the centre and the summit of the Eucharistic celebration. It’s chief
components are 1) the Thanksgiving; 2) the Acclamation; 3) the Epiclesis; 4) the Institution Narrative
and Consecration; 5) the Anamnesis; 6) the Offering; 7)the Intercessions, and 8) the Final Doxology. In
the thanksgiving, which is particularly expressed through the Preface, the priest, in the name of the
entire Church, glorifies and thanks God for the entire work of creation, redemption and sanctification.
During the Acclamation, the Assembly joins the heavenly hosts to praise and glorify the thrice holy
God, through the singing or recitation of the Sanctus. Through the Epiclesis, the Church invokes the
power of the Holy Spirit so that man’s gifts of bread and wine may become the body and blood of
Christ, and that those who receive the sacred body and blood in Holy Communion may receive
41
See GIRM, 55-71.
42
“... debe ser entendida en sentido riguroso, como ‘introducción’ de las ofrendas en una nueva situación litúrgico-sacramental”
(García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 445.).
43
See Ibid.
73
salvation through them. The Institution Narrative is the moment in which, by the power of the Holy
Spirit, Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice is made sacramentally present, through the priest’s performance of
the rite (the words and gestures) that Jesus instituted at the Last Supper, and the bread and wine
become Jesus’ body and blood, respectively. Through the Anamnesis, the Church, in obedience to
Christ, keeps memorial of him, particularly of his Death, Resurrection and Ascension into heaven.
During the Offering, the Church, particularly the Church gathered in the here and now of the
Eucharistic Assembly, offers Christ as the Spotless Victim to the Father. The faithful should also offer
themselves in union with Christ, living this offering in their daily lives. During the Intercessions, the
Church gathered in the Eucharistic Assembly expresses her communion with the entire Church in
heaven, in purgatory and on earth, the living as well as the dead, presenting the needs of all to God
through Christ. The Final Doxology, which is confirmed and concluded by the people’s “Amen,”
expresses the glorification of the Blessed Trinity.44

The Rite of Communion consists of the Lord’s Prayer, the rite of peace, the breaking of bread
and the Communion. The Communion of the celebrating priest is necessary for the integrity of the
Mass, while that of the other faithful is not. Nonetheless, “since the Celebration of the Eucharist is the
Paschal Banquet, it is desirable that in accordance with the Lord’s command his Body and Blood
should be received as spiritual food by those of the faithful who are properly disposed.” 45 For this
reason, Vatican II strongly commends “that more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby
the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same sacrifice.”46

3.2.4 The Concluding Rites

After the Communion Rite come the Concluding Rites, which consist of “a) brief
announcements, should they be necessary; b) the Priest’s greeting and blessing …; c) the dismissal of
the people by the Deacon or the Priest …; d) the kissing of the altar by the Priest and the Deacon,
followed by a profound bow to the altar by the Priest, the Deacon, and the other ministers.” 47 These
rites, particularly the dismissal, imply a sending out on mission, and a commitment on the part of all
to live in thanksgiving and praise to God, occupying themselves in good works and proclaiming the
saving truth to everyone.

3.2.5 The Relationship between the Two Main Parts of the Mass

The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist “are so closely connected with each
other that they form but one single act of worship.”48 On the one hand, the Word, in which the
Covenant is announced, finds its actualisation in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, in which the Covenant is
made sacramentally present. On the other hand, “the table of the Word prepares and disposes for the
table of the bread. It arouses desire, increases the hunger for Christ.” 49 For this reason, “sitting at the

44
See GIRM nn. 79-80: CCC, nn. 1352-1355.
45
GIRM, n. 80: “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” 43.
46
SC n. 55: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 36.
47
GIRM, n. 90: “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” 45.
48
SC n. 56: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 37.
49
“La mesa de la Palabra prepara y dispone a la mesa del pan. Suscita el deseo, incrementa el hambre de Cristo” (Félix María
Arocena, En El Corazón de La Liturgia, 4th ed. (Madrid: Ediciones Palabra, 2006), 125.).
74
table of this sacred banquet [the Eucharist] implies an invitation to two communions: not only
communion with the glorious flesh of Christ, but also communion with his word.” 50

3.2.6 The Reservation of the Holy Eucharist and its Adoration outside Mass

There is a close bond between the celebration of Mass and the worship of the Eucharist outside
Mass. On the one hand, “eucharistic adoration is simply the natural consequence of the eucharistic
celebration,”51 and “the act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place
during the liturgical celebration itself.” 52 On the other hand, “only in adoration can a profound and
genuine reception mature.”53 As Pope St. John Paul II teaches, “the presence of Christ under the sacred
species reserved after Mass ... derives from the celebration of the sacrifice and is directed towards
communion, both sacramental and spiritual.”54

The practice of adoring the Blessed Sacrament outside Mass is as old as the Church herself. As
Pope St. Paul VI writes, “the Catholic Church has always displayed and still displays this latria that
ought to be paid to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, both during Mass and outside of it, by taking the
greatest possible care of consecrated Hosts, by exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful,
and by carrying them about in processions to the joy of great numbers of the people.” 55 Having denied
the permanence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament after Mass, however, the Protestant Reformers
disputed the legitimacy the Church’s practices of reserving the sacrament in the sacrarium or
Tabernacle and adoring it. The Church responded to these denials in the Council of Trent and in
subsequent teachings.

In response to the challenge regarding the reservation of the sacrament, the Council of Trent
solemnly defined that “if any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in
the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst
those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.” 56
As the Sacred Congregation of Rites recalls, “the primary and original purpose of reserving the sacred
species in church outside Mass is the administration of the Viaticum. Secondary ends are the
distribution of Communion outside Mass and the adoration of our Lord Jesus Christ concealed
beneath these same species.”57
50
“Sentarse a la mesa de este banquete sagrado invita a dos comuniones: no sólo con la carne gloriosa de Cristo, sino comulgar
también con su palabra” (Félix María Arocena, La Celebración de La Palabra, Biblioteca Liturgica 54 (Barcelona: Centre de
Pastoral Litúrgica, 2005), 44.).
51
SCar n. 66: Pope Benedict XVI, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Sacramentum Caritatis,” 22 February 2007 (Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, n.d.), 60–61, accessed April 10, 2020,
http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-
caritatis.pdf.
52
SCar n. 66: Ibid., 61.
53
Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005), cited in SCar n. 66: Ibid.
54
EE n. 25: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 12–13.
55
MF, n.56: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 8.
56
Council of Trent, Session 13, On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, can. 7: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the
Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” in The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Œcumenical Council of Trent: Celebrated
Under the Sovereign Pontiffs, Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV., ed. James Waterworth (London: C. Dolman, 1848), 83.
57
Sacred Congregation of Sacraments, Instruction Quam Plurimum (1 October 1949), n. 1, cited in EM n. 49: Sacred
Congregation of Rites, “Eucharisticum Mysterium” - Instruction on Eucharistic Worship, 25 May 1967, n.d., accessed April 13,
2020, https://adoremus.org/1967/05/25/eucharisticum-mysterium/.
75
 Regarding the legitimacy of the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament outside Mass, the Council
of Trent defined that

If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither
to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions,
according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed
publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be
anathema.58

Indeed, it would be strange if the Church, and her individual faithful, did not adore Christ in the
Blessed Sacrament: faith in his true and real presence in this sacrament necessarily inclines the
Church and her faithful to honour him with the adoration that is his due. As Pope St. Paul VI writes,
“the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the
Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this great
Sacrament the worship known as ‘latria,’ which may be given to God alone.” 59 In turn, this adoration
manifests and strengthens that faith.

The adoration of the Blessed Sacrament outside Mass is very important for the life of the
Church, for the spiritual growth of the individual Christian and for the good of the entire world. 60 For
this reason, Pope St. John Paul II invites all to “be generous with our time in going to meet Him
[Christ] in adoration and in contemplation that is full of faith and ready to make reparation for the
great faults and crimes of the world.” 61 He further comments: “if in our time Christians must be
distinguished above all by the ‘art of prayer’, how can we not feel a renewed need to spend time in
spiritual converse, in silent adoration, in heartfelt love before Christ present in the Most Holy
Sacrament?”62 It is evident, therefore, that, although the primary purpose of the Lord’s presence in the
Blessed Sacrament is for the faithful to receive him in Holy Communion, the adoration of the
Sacrament outside Mass is by no means unimportant.

3.3 The Sacramental Sign of the Eucharist

The sacramental sign of the Eucharist is constituted by bread and wine, and by the words with
which the celebrating priest consecrates these elements. The priest pronounces these words in
persona Christi, in the context of the Eucharistic Prayer. Upon being consecrated, the bread and wine
become efficacious signs – signs that really contain that which they signify – of Christ’s body given up
for us and of his blood poured out for us.

58
Council of Trent, Session 13, On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, can. 6: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the
Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” 83.
59
MF, n. 55: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 8.
60
See DC, n. 3.
61
DC, n. 3: Pope Saint John Paul II, Letter “Dominicae Cenae” on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist, 24 February 1980
(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, n.d.), 4, accessed April 25, 2020,
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19800224_dominicae-cenae.pdf.
62
EE n. 25: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 13.
76
3.3.1 The Matter of the Eucharist: Wheat Bread and Wine of the Vine

The biblical narratives of the Lord’s Supper indicate that Jesus made use of bread (see Mt
26:26, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:23-24), and wine, “fruit of the vine” (Mt 26:29, Mk 14:25 and
Lk 22:18), to perform the Eucharistic rite which he instituted on that occasion. The Church’s
Tradition, basing on these narratives, and on other New Testament texts, especially Jn 12:24 (“Very
truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it
dies, it bears much fruit”), has judged that wheat bread is the most appropriate symbol of the Lord’s
body and of his redemptive sacrifice. It is true that, at the time, the Jews used to celebrate the
Passover meal with unleavened bread made from wheat, barley, rye, farro or oats. Nonetheless, the
preferred type was wheat bread. Indeed, the biblical narratives themselves indicate that Jesus used
“̓άρτος”, which in koine Greek usually designates wheat bread. Nonetheless, it is not from the biblical
texts alone but, rather, from the Church’s Tradition in its entirety, that we receive the assurance that
“the bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat.” 63

Although the Church has never made any dogmatic definition regarding this question, the
teachings of her universal and ordinary Magisterium, and her disciplinary norms, unanimously affirm
that “the matter of this sacrament is wheat-bread and grape-wine with a small amount of water to be
mixed in before the consecration.” 64 Suggestions of using other matter – for reasons of inculturation,
for instance – would not seem to go well with this unanimous ecclesial tradition. Only a few sects,
separated from the Church between the second and third centuries, – the Arthotyrites, the
Hydroparastates (the “cold water men,” also called “Aquarians”), the Ebionites, the Encratites (the
“temperature men”) and the Manicheans – attempted to celebrate the Eucharist without wine. The
Arthotirites used bread and cheese, while the rest used bread and water. 65

The Church takes great care to ensure that the matter used for the Eucharist should be valid
and suitable. She has decreed that the bread “must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made
so that there is no danger of decomposition.” 66 That the bread be leavened or fermented does not
affect the validity of the sacrament. However, it would be illicit in the Latin Church. 67 The breaking and
sharing of the Eucharistic host symbolises the unity of the faithful, through the bond of charity, in the
one Eucharistic bread (see 1 Cor 10:16-17). For this reason, while the use of small hosts that do not
have to be further broken into pieces is not in any way ruled out, it is expedient – “by reason of the
sign”68 – “that the Eucharistic bread ... be fashioned in such a way that the Priest at Mass with the
people is truly able to break it into parts and distribute these to at least some of the faithful.” 69 As for

63
GIRM n. 320: “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” 80.
64
DH, n. 1320: Council of Florence (1439-1445), “Exsultate Deo,” 340.
65
See García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 451–452. The question of the use of wine in the celebration of the Eucharist is treated at
some length in Jeff Yelton, Wine in the Lord’s Supper (Osawatomie, Kansas: Jeff Yelton, 2019).
66
RS n. 48: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,”
25 March 2004, n.d., accessed April 5, 2020,
http://m.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-
sacramentum_en.html. See CIC can. 924: CCEO can. 706.
67
See GIRM n. 320.
68
RS n. 49: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum.
69
GIRM, n. 321: “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” 80.
77
the wine, it “must be from the fruit of the vine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is,
without admixture of extraneous substances.”70

3.3.2 The Form of the Eucharist and the Agent of the Eucharistic Conversion

It is Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord, who, by the power of the Holy Spirit, personally makes his
redemptive sacrifice really present at Mass and, simultaneously, converts bread into his own body
and wine into his own blood. In this he uses the priest as his instrument, but Christ himself is the
principal agent. For this reason, the priest is said to pronounce the words of the consecration “in the
person of Christ.”71

Since the fourteenth century, however, there has been a hot debate between the Western and
the Eastern theologians regarding the precise words through which the Eucharistic consecration is
carried out. The Latin theologians, following the lex orandi of the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I),
have always affirmed, with the Council of Florence, that “the form of this sacrament is the words of
the Savior with which he effected this sacrament; for the priest effects the sacrament by speaking in
the person of Christ. It is by the power of these words that the substance of bread is changed in to the
body of Christ, and the substance of wine into his blood.” 72 The Orthodox theologians instead, insist
that the epiclesis is also necessary for the Eucharistic conversion. Indeed, some of them are of the
view that it is the epiclesis alone that is necessary.

Rather than irreconcilably opposing these two traditions to each other, it is theologically
sounder to find their meeting point. To begin with, it is important to bear in mind that the Eucharist,
like every other divine action ad extra, is a common work of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity.
It is specifically attributed to Christ, who instituted it, and to the Holy Spirit, with whom Christ always
works in conjunction. During the Eucharistic prayer, the Church offers epicletic prayers directed to
the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, asking God to actualise Christ’s words and, thus, convert
the bread and the wine, respectively, into Christ’s body given up, and his blood poured out, for the
salvation of men. Nonetheless, it is not to these invocations of the Church that the active presence of
the Holy Spirit, which effects the Eucharistic conversion, is related. This presence is related, rather, to
Christ’s institutional will and, thus, to his words and gestures, which the priest performs in his
(Christ’s) person.

As Pope St. John Paul II taught, when pronouncing the sacramental words during the
celebration of the Eucharist, the priest “puts his voice at the disposal of the One who spoke these
words in the Upper Room and who desires that they should be repeated in every generation by all
those who in the Church ministerially share in his priesthood.” 73 However, the validity of the priest’s
being at the disposal of Christ – hence, the validity of the Mass which he celebrates – depends on his
having at least the intention of doing what the Church does when she celebrates the Eucharist, as the
Council of Trent solemnly affirmed with respect to the celebration of all the sacraments. 74 The
70
GIRM, n. 322: Ibid.
71
See CCC, nn. 1353, 1357-1357, 1375.
72
DH, n. 1321: Council of Florence (1439-1445), “Exsultate Deo,” 341.
73
EE n. 5: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 3.
74
See Council of Trent, Seventh Session, Decree on the Sacraments, can. 11: DH 1611.
78
Church’s intention is also indicated in the way she has always celebrated the Eucharist, as testified to
in Sacred Scripture and in the Church’s Tradition, including her Magisterium. These sources indicate
that the Church celebrates the Eucharist only when the priest consecrates both bread and wine,
physically present before him, by reciting, in persona Christi and in the context of the Eucharistic
Prayer, the words with which Christ instituted the Eucharist. 75 Consequently, if a priest were to
attempt to celebrate the Eucharist but with the intention of consecrating only one of the Eucharistic
species, or were to recite the Lord’s words outside the Eucharistic prayer, his celebration would be
invalid. The Lord’s words would, in those circumstances, not have any sacramental value.

In the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), with which he promulgated the
Roman Missal revised according to the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, Pope St. Paul VI decreed
that in all Eucharistic prayers of the Latin Rite, the same formula should be used for pronouncing the
words of the Lord: over the bread: “Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hic est Corpus meum, quod
pro vobis tradetur;”76 and over the chalice: “Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis
mei novi et aeterni testament, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc
facite in mean commemorationem.”77 With regard to the mode of pronouncing them, the Church has
established that “the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of
these words requires.”78

3.4 The Eucharist as the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood

Jesus Christ “is present in many ways to his Church: in his word, in his Church’s prayer, ‘where
two or three are gathered in my name,’ in the poor, the sick and the imprisoned, in the sacraments of
which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass and in the person of the minister. But ‘he is
present ... most especially in the Eucharistic species.”79 This “Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at
the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is
present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a
way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.” 80

75
See GIRM nn. 72, 141-142, 324: CIC can 927.
76
Pope Saint Paul VI, “Constitutio Apostolica ‘Missale Romanum’ (3 Aprilis MCMLXIX),” in Missale Romanum, Typica Tertia.
(Midwest Theological Forum, 2007), 10. In English, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body, which will be given
up for you.” (OM n. 89: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 646.).
77
Paul VI, “Constitutio Apostolica ‘Missale Romanum’ (3 Aprilis MCMLXIX),” 10. In English, “Take this, all of you, and drink
from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for
many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.” (OM n. 90: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of
the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 646.).
78
OM n. 102: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 649. See also GIRM n.
32: Pope St. John Paul II and Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, Instruction “Inaestimabile Domun”
(17 April 1980) n. 6).
79
CCC, n.1373: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 346–347.
80
CCC, n. 1377: Ibid., 348.
79
3.4.1 The True, Real and Substantial Presence of the Person of the Word Incarnate in the Blessed Sacrament

3.4.1.1 Christ’s Eucharistic Presence in Sacred Scripture

Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Tradition give firm testimony to the presence of our Lord in
the Eucharist. Scripture testifies that on one occasion, when preaching in the synagogue at
Capernaum, Jesus promised his disciples that he would give them, as nourishment for eternal life, his
own flesh to eat, and his own blood to drink (Jn 6:35,48-58). Later on, when instituting the Eucharist,
at the Last Supper, he took bread and said: “... this is my body...” (Mt 26:26; see Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1
Cor 11:24), and, taking a cup, he said: “... this is my blood ...” (Mt 26:28; see 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor
11:25). The Church has always understood these words literally, and has always firmly believed that
what Jesus had in his hands was his body, under the appearance of bread, and his blood, under the
appearance of wine.

In First Corinthians, St. Paul makes some further affirmations that leave no doubt regarding the
real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When he asks: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a
sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? ” (1 Cor
10:16), the rhetorical nature of the questions indicates that their truth was well recognised. When he
affirms that “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one
bread” (1 Cor 10:17), it is difficult to think of him as referring to ordinary bread, prepared and
consumed at different times and in different places. This bread would not simply be “one,” and could
not be a sufficient foundation for uniting all Christians into one body. Finally, when he severely warns
that “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. ... all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat
and drink judgment against themselves” (1 Cor 11:27,29), his faith in the Eucharistic presence of the
Lord is clear, otherwise this warning would not have much sense.

3.4.1.2 Christ’s Eucharistic Presence in the Church’s Tradition

Over the two thousand years of the Church’s history, there has been continuous reflection on
the mystery of the true, real and substantial presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. At the
beginning, the Fathers had to defend this truth against the negations of the gnostics. The Eucharistic
controversies of the 9th to the 11th centuries provoked a strong reaction among all the faithful, leading
to a strong emphasis, both in worship and in theological reflection, on the Eucharistic presence of the
Lord, although not always matched with equal emphasis on the his reception in Holy Communion. The
elevation of the consecrated host and the chalice after the consecration, the use of incense, the
genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament, the use of the Tabernacle lamp, and, eventually, the
institution of the feast of Corpus Christi, came from this reaction. When the Protestant Reformers, like
Berengar had done centuries earlier, denied the objective presence of the Lord in Eucharist, the
Council of Trent dogmatically defined that “if any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy
Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and

80
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein
as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”81

After Trent, theologians have continued to reflect on the mystery of Christ’s presence in the
Eucharist. Recent theology has tried to underline the personal dimension of this presence, although
some explanations have not been in complete accord with the Church’s faith. In this context, Pope St.
Paul VI insisted on the affirmation of the true, real and substantial presence of Christ under the
Eucharistic species, explaining that “this presence is called ‘real’ not to exclude the idea that the
others are ‘real’ too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and
through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man.” 82

3.4.1.3 True, Real, Substantial, Corporeal, Personal and Sacrificial Presence

Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament truly, really and substantially, corporeally and
personally, in a sacrificial state, that is, as one who loved us and gave up his life for us. This presence
is corporeal, in the sense that our Lord is present through his body and his blood. It is a true presence,
since the Lord’s body and blood are present not merely in figure but in truth. It is a “real” presence,
meaning that it is the presence par excellence, the substantial presence of Christ wholly and entirely,
in both his divinity and his humanity. Nevertheless, Christ’s body is not present in the Blessed
Sacrament in the same way that men are present in history. It is present, rather, in a mysteric or
sacramental way, that is, truly and really but under the veil of the sacramental sign, that is, of the
Eucharistic species.

Jesus’ presence in the Blessed Sacrament is described as “substantial” in the sense, firstly, that
what we have in the Blessed Sacrament is not a mere figure of Christ, nor a mere sign of his salvific
power but, rather, the most profound reality itself of his body and blood (and, by concomitance, of his
entire person). This presence is substantial, secondly, in the sense of not being overt: Christ is present
through the substance, but not the species, of his body and blood. For this reason, we cannot perceive
this presence with our senses. In this sense, the “already and not yet” that characterises the present
age is fulfilled in the Eucharist as well: Jesus Christ, our Eschatological Lord, is “already” with us, but
we do “not yet” see him as he is in his glory.

Recent theology has sought to highlight the personal dimension of the Lord’s presence in the
Eucharist. Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament not as an inert reality but, rather, as one who
knows and loves, one who desires to relate with us. He desires that we correspond to his love, his gift
of self, with love, cultivating an interpersonal relationship with him. It is necessary, however, to found
this personalistic understanding of Jesus’ presence in the Blessed Sacrament on the affirmation of his
ontological – true, real and substantial – presence. Without this ontological foundation, the truth of
Christ’s Eucharistic presence could easily end up being reduced to mere Eucharistic “signification.”

81
On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, can. 1: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the Most Holy Sacrament of the
Eucharist,” 82.
82
Mysterium Fidei n. 39: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 6.
81
3.4.2 The Transubstantiation

The biblical narratives of the institution of the Eucharist declare that at some point during the
Last Supper, “Jesus took bread ... and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body ’” (Mt
26:26; see Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). “Then he took a cup, and ... gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink
from it, all of you. This is my blood ....’” The Church has always understood that through those gestures
and words Jesus changed, by the action of the Holy Spirit, what until then had been bread into his
body, and what until then had been wine into his blood.

The Church Fathers looked for ways of expressing the mode of this change. They came up with
such expressions as “change,” “transformation,” “transmutation,” “conversion,” “eucharistisation,”
“transelementation” and “transignification.”83 In the face of the Protestant denials of the Catholic
understanding of the Eucharistic conversion, Trent solemnly defined that

If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the
bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the
Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and
wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls
Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.84

This Tridentine definition remains a necessary point of reference for every authentic
understanding of the mystery of the Eucharistic conversion. The Council, however, did not prohibit
further theological research on the mystery.

Transubstantiation is a unique change, without any comparison in nature. While in all the
other changes the end result of the change is produced by the change itself, the end result of
transubstantiation, that is, the body and blood of our Lord, is pre-existent, since Jesus’ humanity is not
created through the transubstantiation. In fact, unlike in the natural changes, the end result of the
transubstantiation does not belong to the same natural order as the starting point, since Christ’s body
is glorious while the bread and wine are not. Furthermore, while in the natural substantial changes
the species always change, in the transubstantiation the species of the bread and wine remain.

From the middle of the 20th century, there have been efforts to find means of presenting this
mystery in ways that would be more consonant with the present mentality. For this reason, some
have invented the concepts of “transignification” and “transfinalisation.” According to these theories,
the most profound truth of a reality does not consist in what it is in itself but, rather, in its meaning
and purpose for man. In the Eucharist, according to these authors, Christ gives the bread and the wine
a new signification and finality for the believers, for whom these elements now signify the body and
blood of Christ.

83
See David Grumett, Material Eucharist (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2016), 144–159.: Paul F. Bradshaw and
Maxwell E. Johnson, The Eucharistic Liturgies: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012),
184.: Cuéllar, Tratado sobre los sacramentos, 212.
84
On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, can. 1: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the Most Holy Sacrament of the
Eucharist,” 82.
82
 Pope St. Paul VI commented on these theories in the encyclical Mysterium fidei and, again, in
the Credo of the People of God. In the encyclical, he recognised that “as a result of transubstantiation,
the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are
no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual
food.”85 He pointed out, however, that “they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely
because they contain a new ‘reality’ which we can rightly call ontological.” 86 The Eucharistic
transignification and transfinalisation are, therefore, founded on the transubstantiation, which has
ontological precedence over them: without the transubstantiation there would not be any
transignification or transfinalisation of the species of bread and wine. In Credo, the pope insisted that
every theological explanation of the Eucharistic conversion “must, in order to be in accord with
Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have
ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that
from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine.” 87

3.4.3 The Mode of Christ’s Presence in the Blessed Sacrament

Trent solemnly defined that “if any one denieth, that in the venerable sacrament of the
Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species,
when separated; let him be anathema.”88 This presence is, invisible and intangible, uncircumscribed,
and “endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.” 89

3.4.3.1 Wholly Present Under Each Species

The Catholic Church has always believed that Christ is wholly present under each of the two
Eucharistic species. This explains her taking the Eucharist to the sick, the elderly and prisoners under
the species of bread alone; her administration of Communion to the sick that cannot swallow solid
food under the species of wine alone, and her administration of Communion to children under only
one species (under the species of wine for infants and under the species of bread in older children). As
the Tridentine Council explains,

this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the
veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are
under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the
Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species
of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that
natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen
from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of
the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that
as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under
85
Mysterium Fidei, n. 46: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 7.
86
Mysterium Fidei, n. 46: Ibid.
87
Credo of the People of God, n. 25: Pope Saint Paul VI, Apostolic Letter in the Form of “Motu Proprio” “Solemni Hac
Liturgia” (Credo of the People of God), 30 June 1968 (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, n.d.), 7, accessed April 18, 2020,
http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.pdf. See also
Mysterium Fidei, n. 46.
88
Council of Trent, On the Holy Eucharist, can. 3: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the Most Holy Sacrament of the
Eucharist,” 82–83.
89
CCC, n.1377: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 348.
83
 the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ)
is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof. 90

The direct result of the transubstantiation – that which is present “by the force of the words” –
under the species of bread, that is, that into which the substance of bread is converted, is the
substance of the body of Christ. Under the species of wine it is the substance of the blood of Christ.
However, Christ’s risen body and blood are united to each other and to his soul, as inseparable parts
of his glorious humanity which is, at the same time, inseparably united to the divine nature through
the mystery of the Hypostatic Union. For this reason, wherever his body is, so is his blood, his soul and
his divinity. Similarly, wherever his blood is, so is his body, his soul and his divinity. It is thus that the
whole Christ is present, by concomitancy, under each of the two Eucharistic species.

It is important, however, to avoid two possible extremes in the interpretation of the dogma we
are commenting. On the one hand, that “by the force of the words” that which is directly under the
species of bread is Christ’s body, and that which is directly under the species of the wine is his blood,
does not imply a division in Christ. In fact, this is the very reason why the presence of Christ’s body
under the species of bread, and that of his blood under the species of wine, necessarily imply the
concomitant presence, in each case, of all the other parts of his person as well. On the other hand, the
presence of Christ, whole and entire, under each one of the two species should not be construed as
rendering the double consecration, which Christ himself instituted, superfluous. In fact, the double
consecration brings out the sacrificial character of Mass, signifying the separation which took place at
Christ’s death, of his blood poured out for us, from his body given up for us.

3.4.3.2 Wholly Presence Under Every Part of Each Species

Christ is wholly contained “under every part of each species, when separated.” The drinking
from the same chalice during the Eucharistic celebration (see Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor
10:21 and 11:25) and the sharing of the one Eucharistic bread as the basis for the Church’s unity (see
1 Cor 10:16-18) give witness to this faith. In subsequent ecclesial praxis, the practice of the breaking
of the bread, and that of drinking from one chalice by many during the celebration of the Mass,
equally testify to this faith. In all these cases there is no doubt regarding the Church’s conviction that
the breaking of the Eucharistic bread does not divide Christ himself, and that even when they are
many who drink from the same chalice of the Lord’s blood, each one receives Christ as wholly as if he
alone had drank the entire chalice alone.

The reason for the possibility of dividing the Eucharistic species and yet have Christ wholly
and simultaneously present under each part of the resulting division is the same as that in virtue of
which it is possible for Christ to be simultaneously present, whole and entire, under both species, and
in different parts of the world. It is the uncircumscribed (illocaliter) manner of his Eucharistic
presence. Thanks to it, “the unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not

90
Council of Trent, On the Holy Eucharist, chap. 3: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the Most Holy Sacrament of the
Eucharist,” 78.
84
multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is
celebrated.”91

3.4.3.3 Presence Imperceptible to Our Bodily Senses

Christ’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament, being substantial, is imperceptible to every bodily
sense, with the sole exception of Christ’s own bodily senses. It is true that Christ’s body, being a true
body, is endowed with bodily accidents (height, weight, colour, shape, texture, position, location, etc),
even though, since he is risen and glorious, he has these accidents in a glorious, heavenly way, not in
the same way as we have them here on earth. Since he has these accidents, when the substance of his
body becomes present in the Blessed Sacrament, it becomes present, by reason of real concomitance,
with its accidents, together with all the other parts of his person. However, the Eucharistic conversion
directly terminates in the substance of his body and blood, not in its accidents, nor in any other part of
his person. For this reason, “the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by means of
the substance; so that the accidents of Christ’s body have no immediate relationship either to
this sacrament or to adjacent bodies.”92

Now, our bodily senses only perceive that which they can detect through the medium
separating them from the object in question. 93 For this reason, and since “Christ’s body bears a
relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own accidents, but through the
sacramental species,”94 it follows that the presence of Christ’s bodily accidents in the Blessed
Sacrament cannot be perceived by our bodily senses, not even by the glorified bodily senses of the
Blessed Virgin Mary.95 As St. Thomas writes, “Christ’s body under its proper species96 can be seen only
in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and
is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament.”97 In the Eucharist it is
the sacramental species that our bodily senses perceive, not the accidents of Christ’s body.

Not only is it the accidents of Christ’s body that cannot be perceived by our bodily senses in the
Eucharist: the substance itself is imperceptible to us, since “substance, as such, is not visible to the
bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under
the intellect, whose object is ‘what a thing is.’”98 For this reason, Christ’s presence in the Blessed
Sacrament cannot be perceived in any way by any bodily sense – except Christ’s own –, but only by
the intellect of God, of the glorified angels and saints in heaven, and of those who believe. 99

91
Pope St. Paul VI, Credo n. 26: Paul VI, Solemni Hac Liturgia, 7.
92
STh III, q. 76, a. 7, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 403.
93
See STh III, q. 81, a. 3, respondo.
94
STh III, q. 76, a. 7, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 403.
95
St. Thomas shows that Christ’s bodily senses [St. Thomas’ explicit reference is to the eye, but his argument certainly applies to
all the senses] are an exception in this regard. Since they are themselves under this sacrament, Christ’s bodily senses perceive
himself as present in this sacrament. This, however, does not apply to the senses of other humans, even when they are glorified
(see STh. III, q. 76, a. 7).
96
The species coincide with the Aristotelian categories of accidents.
97
STh III, q. 78, a. 8, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 404.
98
STh III, q. 76, a. 7, respondo: Ibid., 403.
99
See STh III, q. 76, a. 7.
85
3.4.3.4 A Sacramental Presence

Christ’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament is “sacramental,” that is, he is present under the
sacramental species. Nevertheless, the Lord’s body does not take up the Eucharistic species, nor is it
circumscribed by the dimensions of these species, nor translocated when the sacred species are
translocated, nor in any way affected in itself when an external agent brings about some change in the
species.

From the moment of the transubstantiation, a relation of inseparability and signification,

founded on Christ’s act of instituting the Eucharist, is established between Christ’s body and the
Eucharistic species. This relation is of inseparability, in the sense that Christ’s body is necessarily
present whenever and wherever the Eucharistic species are found. It is of signification, in that the
Eucharistic species reveal the presence of Christ’s body. Thus, Christ has a “sacramental” presence in
the Eucharist, a presence that is bound to the sacramental sign, to the Eucharistic species.

Christ’s body, however, does not take up the sacramental species as its own. It does not, for
example, have the same colour, shape, size, texture, smell, taste, weight or chemical composition as a
host, nor does his blood have the same appearance and experimental properties as those of wine.
Although they continue to subsist after the transubstantiation, “these accidents are not subjected in
the substance of Christ’s body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way
be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impassible body to be altered
so as to receive these qualities.”100 Rather, God miraculously maintains them in being, without their
inhering in any subject.101

Neither does Christ’s body occupy (fill) the spaces which the sacramental species occupy. It is
not under its own species but, rather, under the species of bread and wine, that Christ’s body is
present in the Blessed Sacrament. For this reason, it is not the proper species of Christ’s body that fill
the spaces which the Blessed Sacrament occupies but, rather, the species of bread and wine. It is thus
that, although Christ’s body is truly and really present whenever and wherever the Eucharistic
species are found, it is not localised in the corresponding spaces, it is not circumscribed by them.

Neither is it possible to assign a part within the consecrated host to each specific part of
Christ’s body. As St. Thomas wrote, “the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the
dimensions under which it is contained.” 102 Hence, since Christ’s body is present in a substantial – and
not accidental manner – in the sacred species, the whole of it is in every part of the sacred host, and
the whole of his blood is in every portion of the sacrament of his blood.

100
STh III, q. 77, a. 1, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 405.
101
St. Thomas explains that “this can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the
second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve
an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as
without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin’s womb,
‘without the seed of man’” (STh III, q. 77, a. 1, respondo: Ibid.).
102
STh, III, q. 76, a. 3, respondo: Ibid., 400.
86
 Since Christ’s body is not localised in the spaces in which the Eucharistic species are contained,
there is no difficulty in affirming his simultaneous presence in all the places where the Blessed
Sacrament is found and, at the same time, his presence in heaven, yet without denying his
individuality (uniqueness and indivisibility) in any way. It is in heaven where Christ is located. In the
Blessed Sacrament he is truly and really present but not located, that is, he himself does not occupy
the spaces which the sacramental species occupy. As Pope St. Paul VI teaches, “the unique and
indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the
sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present,
after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament.”103

Since Christ is not located in the places in which the sacramental species are located, he
himself does not change location when the sacramental species are moved from one place to another.
True, through these movements Christ ceases to be sacramentally present in one place and becomes
sacramentally present in another place, according to the translocation of the sacramental species.
Even then, “Christ is not moved locally of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in
this sacrament as in a place ... what is not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to
the motion of the subject in which it is.”104

Finally, Christ’s body does not suffer any change when the Eucharistic species are acted upon
by an external agent. This is because passion requires “contact of the suffering body with the active
agents.”105 In the Blessed Sacrament, however, Christ’s body “is not compared with its surroundings
through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the
dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are
seen, but not Christ’s own body.”106

3.4.3.5 A Permanent Presence

Christ’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament is permanent, in the sense that it endures as long as
the sacramental species subsist. When the Protestant Reformers rejected this truth, the Council of
Trent solemnly defined that

If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use,
whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated
particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord
remaineth not; let him be anathema.107

It was not the Tridentine Council however, that invented this faith. Rather, throughout her
history the Church has, in multiple ways, held and manifested it. This can be discerned, for instances,
in the practice, already testified to by St. Justine, of taking the Eucharist after Mass to those who could
103
Pope St. Paul VI, Credo n. 26: Paul VI, Solemni Hac Liturgia, 7.
104
STh III, q. 76, a. 6, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 402.
105
STh III, q. 81, a. 3, respondo: Ibid., 442.
106
STh III, q. 81, a. 3, respondo: Ibid.
107
Council of Trent, On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, can. 4: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the Most Holy
Sacrament of the Eucharist,” 83.
87
not attend; in the practice, testified to by Tertullian and St. Hippolytus, of Christians taking the
Eucharist with them for Communion during the week; in the practice of taking the Eucharist to
prisoners, testified to in the Acts of the Martyrs Montanus, Lucius and Companions; in the practice of
collecting the fragments left after Communion and reserving them in the sacrarium, as the Apostolic
Constitutions testify.108 The same faith led the 3 rd/4th-century martyr St. Tarcisius (sometimes spelt as
Tarsicius), when attacked by a mob while taking the Eucharist to prisoners, to let himself be beaten to
death rather than let go of the sacrament that he held in his hands. 109

The theological explanation of this permanence is to be found in the relation that Jesus
established between the Eucharistic species and his own body when, on instituting the Eucharist, he
declared: “... this is my body...” (Mt 26:26; see Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), “... this is my blood ...”
(Mt 26:28; see 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). When Christ thus affirmed the identity between what
he held in his hands and his body and blood, he did not condition this identity on the disciples
consuming the sacrament, or on their recognition of it, or on any other such factor. Rather, he stated
absolutely: “this is my body;” “this is my blood.” Consequently, as long as both Christ’s body and the
sacramental species subsist, Christ’s body is present under the species.

This presence cannot cease unless Christ’s own body ceases to exist in itself (since a non-
existent thing cannot be really present anywhere), or the relation of inseparability between his
presence and the Eucharistic species ceases, or the Eucharistic species cease to exist. However, since
Christ is risen and immortal, his body cannot cease to exist. Neither can the relation of inseparability
cease, since it is ensured by Christ’s infallible word. Hence, Christ “ceases to be under this sacrament,
not because He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own ... but only by the fact that the
sacramental species cease to exist.”110

Like every sacramental sign, the Eucharistic species must be naturally perceptible to the bodily
senses of men. When they are altered in such a way that they are no longer naturally perceptible to
human senses, then it must be said that they are no longer Eucharistic species, and that our Lord is no
longer sacramentally present under them, even if chemically they still react like bread or wine. 111 This
could happen, for examples, when (1) they are divided into particles that are too tiny to be naturally
perceptible to our bodily senses, or (2) they are altered in such a way (e.g., in colour, taste, smell,
consistency) that the end products are still naturally perceptible to our senses but no longer give the
appearance of being bread or wine.

The Eucharistic species cease to subsist whenever they are altered in such a way that the end
products are specifically different from the consecrated species. This is true even when such end
products are naturally perceptible to our bodily senses and have the appearance of bread or wine, but
are no longer numerically the species of the bread or wine that was subjected to the Eucharistic
consecration. This can happen, for instance, if the sacrament of the Lord’s blood is mixed with such a

108
See García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 562–563.
109
See A. J. M. Mausolfe and J. K. Mausolfe, Saint Companions for Each Day, ed. Ladislaus L. D’Souza, New Revised Edition.
(Mumbai: St Pauls BYB, 2008), 304.
110
STh, III, q. 76, a. 6: respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 402.
111
See STh, III, qq. 76-77: García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 565.
88
huge quantity of un-consecrated wine that the un-consecrated wine permeates the consecrated wine
and mixes with it throughout. In this case, the resulting liquid would be wine, but it would not be
numerically the same wine that underwent the consecration. Consequently, it would no longer be
sacrament of the Lord’s blood.112

In any case, it is necessary to always treat the sacramental species with extreme reverence. As
long as they subsist, our adorable Lord is present under them, even if for some reason they can no
longer be consumed by us (for example, if the sacrament of his blood is poured on a piece of cloth). If
the sacred species undergo corruption, it is necessary to treat their remnants with care. Among other
reasons, this is because it is often impossible to determine with absolute certainty if the alteration
that they have suffered is so profound that they are no longer Eucharistic species and, consequently,
that our Lord is no longer present under them. In such cases as these ones, it is necessary to follow
the instructions of nn. 278-280 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

3.5 The Church’s Participation in the Eucharist

The Eucharist is the means that Christ left to his Church of participating in his sacrifice. As
Pope St. John Paul II explains, “this sacrifice is so decisive for the salvation of the human race that
Jesus Christ offered it and returned to the Father only after he had left us a means of sharing in it as if
we had been present there. Each member of the faithful can thus take part in it and inexhaustibly gain
its fruits.”113

3.5.1 The Eucharist as a Sacrifice of the Church

The Eucharist, the sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, “is also the sacrifice of the
Church.”114 The Church offers and is herself offered with Christ in the Eucharist, and she unites herself
with the adoration, the thanksgiving, the atonement and the petition that he offers to the Father on
behalf of all men.

3.5.1.1 Christ is the Priest

Christ himself is the Priest who offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. However, he “always associates
the Church with himself in this great work wherein God is perfectly glorified and men are
sanctified.”115 This priestly role of the Church is reflected in her Anaphoras. In Eucharistic Prayer II of
the Roman Missal, for instance, the Church prays: “Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his
Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving
thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.” 116 This priestly
activity of the Church is certainly distinct from that of Christ, but is inseparably united to it and
dependent on it.

112
On this, see STh, III, q. 77, a. 8, respondo.
113
EE n.11: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 6.
114
CCC, n. 1368: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 345.
115
SC n. 7: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 24.
116
OM n. 105: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 651.
89
 In the Eucharist, the Church is also offered, whole and entire, together with her Head. As Pope
St. John Paul II teaches, “in giving his sacrifice to the Church, Christ has also made his own the
spiritual sacrifice of the Church, which is called to offer herself in union with the sacrifice of Christ.” 117
Pope Benedict XVI explains that “this insistence on sacrifice – a ‘making sacred’ – expresses all the
existential depth implied in the transformation of our human reality as taken up by Christ (cf. Phil
3:12).”118 Thus, “the lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer and work are united with those
of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar
makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.” 119 This spiritual
sacrifice of the Church, and of each one of her faithful, is also reflected in her Anaphoras. In
Eucharistic Prayer III of the Roman Missal, for instance, the Church prays: “May he [Christ] make of us
an eternal offering to you, so that we may obtain an inheritance with your elect.” 120

It should be born in mind, however, that the Church’s offering does not add anything
whatsoever to Christ’s sacrifice. Indeed, it is through the merits of Christ’s sacrifice that the lives of
Christians can become a true spiritual sacrifice that is pleasing to God. This is why the Church prays:
“Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice which you yourself have provided for your Church, and grant in your
loving kindness to all who partake of this one Bread and one Chalice that ... they may truly become a
living sacrifice in Christ to the praise of your glory.” 121 Thus, the Church’s spiritual sacrifice derives, by
way of participation, from Christ’s sacrifice.

3.5.1.2 The Ends, Value and Fruits of Mass

An area of practical interest in the consideration of the Church’s participation in Mass is that of
the ends, value and fruits of Mass. The “ends” refer to the purposes for which Mass is celebrated, and
the “value” refers to its worth before God, while the “fruits” are the salutary effects that derive for
men from its celebration.

Jesus offered his sacrifice at Calvary with a four-fold end and purpose, which is latreutic
(adoration), eucharistic (thanksgiving), propitiatory (reparation) and impetratory (petition). At Mass,
therefore, the Church unites herself to Jesus Christ in offering due homage to God as the Creator and
End of all things (the latreutic end); in offering him thanks for the work of creation and redemption,
for all the good things we, men, have received from him (the eucharistic end); in seeking the regaining
of God’s favour on behalf of all who have offended him through sin (the propitiatory end), and in
praying for the needs of all the faithful and of all men (the impetratory end). 122

The Church has no authority to remove any of these four essential ends of the Mass, or to add
any new one. Thus, when the Protestant Reformers were rejecting the propitiatory end of Mass, the

117
EE n.13: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 7.
118
SCar n. 70: Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 40.
119
CCC, n. 1368: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 345.
120
OM n. 113: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 654.
121
OM n. 122: Ibid., 659.
122
See García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 496–497.: Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Early Latin Theology, ed. Robert M. Doran and H.
Daniel Monsour, trans. Michael G. Shields, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan 19 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2011), 5.: Osborne, The Christian Sacraments of Initiation, 244.
90
Council of Trent solemnly defined that “if any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice
of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the
cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to
be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be
anathema.”123 The same Council demonstrated the Church’s inability to add to the ends of the Mass,
when it taught that Masses celebrated in honour of the saints are not offered to them, “but unto God
alone, who crowned them.”124

The Mass, being the sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, has an
intrinsically infinite latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory and impetratory value. Nonetheless, since the
beneficiaries of the propitiatory and impetratory fruit are human beings, who have personal
limitations, they receive this salvific power of the Mass in a limited way, depending on their moral
dispositions. It could even happen, due to moral indisposition, that a would-be beneficiary of the Mass
does not receive any propitiatory and impetratory fruit whatsoever from it. This limited way in which
the salvific power of the Mass is received by its beneficiaries is the reason why Mass can be offered
many times for the same intention.

The instinct of the Catholic faithful, the Liturgy and the teaching of the Magisterium testify that
“fruit derives from the Mass for the whole Church, and the world, and individuals for whom the
Church prays in the eucharistic sacrifice; and especially for those who actively participate in the
celebration as well as for those in favor of whom the eucharistic sacrifice is celebrated.” 125 The
measure of this fruit depends on the devotion of the priest and the faithful who physically participate
in the Mass, and on the devotion of each beneficiary of this fruit. 126 Since the Middle Ages, many
theologians have distinguished three ways of participating in this fruit. Accordingly, every member of
the Church on earth or in purgatory receives what is referred to as the general fruit of Mass. Instead,
the celebrating (or concelebrating) priest, and each one of the faithful who are physically present at
Mass, receives the personal fruit of the Mass. Each celebrating or concelebrating priest receives, in
addition, a special fruit, which he can apply in favour of a specific person or persons, or intention. A
priest can accept an offering from a person who wants him to apply this special fruit for his (for the
offerer’s) intention.127

123
Council of Trent, Session 22 (17 Septermber 1562), On the Sacrifice of the Mass, can. 3: Council of Trent (1546-1563),
Session 22 (17 September 1562), “On the Sacrifice of the Mass,” in The Creeds of Christendom: Greek and Latin Creeds -
Volume II, trans. Philip Schaff (New York: Cosimo, Inc., 2007), 184–185.
124
Council of Trent, Session 22 (17 Septermber 1562), On the Sacrifice of the Mass, chap. 3: Ibid., 180.
125
Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, ed. Robert J. Daly (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
2004), 230.
126
See Ibid.
127
In this regard, the Church rules that “in accord with the approved practice of the Church, any priest celebrating or
concelebrating is permitted to receive an offering to apply the Mass for a specific intention” (CIC can. 945 §1: Code of Canon
Law, 224.). On the fruits of Mass, see Kenneth Baker, Fundamentals of Catholicism: Grace, the Church, the Sacraments,
Eschatology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1983), 272–273. See also Robert J. Daly, Sacrifice Unveiled: The True Meaning
of Christian Sacrifice (London; New York: A&C Black, 2009), 186. The nomenclature used for these fruits is not exactly the
same in all authors: sometimes the “special fruit,” which the priest applies for those for whom he specifically offers the Mass, is
referred to as the “ministerial fruit” (see, for instance, W. Herbst, Questions of Catholics Answered (Wisconsin: The Society of
the Divine Savior, 1946), 384.): at times the “personal fruit” which the priest receives from the Mass is referred to as the “most
special fruit” (see, for example, James Thomas O’Connor, The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist (San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius Press, 2005), 312.).
91
3.5.2 The Mass as the Paschal Banquet: Holy Communion

“The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice
of the cross is perpetuated, and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood.” 128
“The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the
two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord.” 129 For this reason,
“that more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s
communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.”130

3.5.2.1 Inseparability between Mass and Communion

In the Eucharist, “the sacrifice and sacred meal belong to the same mystery.” 131 In a similar
way as in the Hebrew Pasch the consumption of the victim was an integral part of the offering of the
sacrifice, in the Mass “sacrifice and meal mutually interpenetrate and define one another, since the
communion, as a communion in Christ’s Pasch, is cruciform [i.e., sacrificial].” 132 For this reason, “the
faithful participate more fully in this sacrament of thanksgiving, propitiation, petition, and praise, not
only when they wholeheartedly offer the Sacred Victim, and in it themselves, to the Father with the
priest, but also when they receive this same Victim sacramentally.” 133

Nevertheless, “although it is most desirable that the people should also approach the holy
table, this is not required for the integrity of the sacrifice.” 134 In this regard, Trent ruled that “if any
one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are,
therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.”135

3.5.2.2 The Ministers of Holy Communion

The minister of the Eucharist is the validly ordained bishop or priest, but the deacon also is an
ordinary minister of Holy Communion, while non-ordained faithful can be instituted or designated as
extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Regarding the Eucharistic ministry of the bishops and
priests, Trent teaches that “to the apostles, and to their successors in the priesthood, the power was
delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood.” 136 In the early Church, and
into the Middle Ages, the general practice was that the bishops and priests would communicate to
themselves, while the deacons, the other ministers and all the people would receive Holy Communion
from the bishop or the priest. 137 Deacons, too, could help in the distribution of Communion at Mass,
and to take it to those who could not attend Mass. In extraordinary circumstances, even non ordained
128
CCC, n. 1382: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 349.
129
CCC, n. 1383: Ibid.
130
SC n. 55: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 36. See CCC, n. 1388: CIC can. 917.
131
EM n. 3b: Sacred Congregation of Rites, “Eucharisticum Mysterium” - Instruction on Eucharistic Worship.
132
Levering, Sacrifice and Community, 2.
133
EM n. 3e: Sacred Congregation of Rites, “Eucharisticum Mysterium” - Instruction on Eucharistic Worship.
134
MD n. 112: Pius XII, “‘Mediator Dei.’ Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy,” 135.
135
Council of Trent, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, can. VIII: Council of Trent (1546-1563), Session 22 (17 September 1562), “On
the Sacrifice of the Mass,” 159.
136
Council of Trent, The True and Catholic Doctrine Touching the Sacrament of Order chap. 1: Council of Trent (1546-1563),
“The True and Catholic Doctrine, Touching the Sacrament of Order,” in The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical
Council of Trent, trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 170–174.
92
faithful could be designated to help in taking Holy Communion to those who could not attend Mass. 138
At present, the acolyte is a permanently installed extraordinary minister of Holy Communion but,
when there is need, the local ordinary may grant the faculty of serving as extraordinary ministers of
Holy Communion to other lay faithful or religious as well.139

3.5.2.3 Modalities of Receiving Holy Communion

Regarding the modalities of receiving Holy Communion, we can observe that Holy Communion
can be received within or outside the Mass, in both kinds or in one species. In the early Church
Christians used to receive Holy Communion during the Eucharistic celebration. However, the
sacrament could be taken to those – such as prisoners, the elderly, the ill – who could not physically
participate in Mass. In some cases it was even taken home for domestic Communion during the
week.140 Beginning with the 12th century, the practice was introduced of distributing Communion
immediately after Mass, especially during the great solemnities, so that those who had no intention of
receiving Communion would not have to wait while the others communicated. After the Council of
Trent, the practice of administering Holy Communion outside Mass became widespread. The
intention was to encourage frequent Communion, and to facilitate the reception of the sacrament for
those who were unable to participate in Mass. However, it carried the risk of obscuring the bond
between Holy Communion and Mass. Today, the Church disposes that “the faithful should normally
receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the
rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the Priest celebrant’s Communion.” 141 “It is to be
administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical
rites being observed.”142

In the early Church, during Mass Holy Communion was habitually distributed under both
kinds. For consumption during the week, however, the faithful would take the sacrament only under
the species of bread. Similarly, to the sick and elderly who received Holy Communion in their homes;
the anchorites; the prisoners, and others to whom the sacrament had to be taken after Mass, it was
administered only under the species of bread. Infants, instead, and those who could not take solid
food, received the Eucharist under the species of wine. Beginning with the 12 th century, however, the
Latin Church started administering communion under the species of bread alone. This was motivated
by the scarcity of wine in some countries, the desire to curtail the risk of spilling the Lord’s blood and
the need to ensure hygiene during Communion. Jan Hus [also called “John Hus or Huss”] (1372-1415);
the Bohemian Brethren, and the Protestant Reformers criticised this practice. The Councils of
137
In this regard, Theodore of Mopsuestia, commenting a vision of Isaiah, writes: “And the Seraph did not hold the live coal with
his hand but with tongs. This vision demonstrates that (the faithful) should be afraid to draw nigh unto the Sacrament without an
intermediary, and this is the priest, who, with his hand, gives you the Sacrament and says: ‘the body of Christ,’ while he himself
does not believe that he is worthy to hold and give such things: but in the place of tongs he possesses the spiritual grace, which he
received in his priesthood, and from which he acquired the confidence for giving such things” (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homily
cited in Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Scripture Re-Envisioned: Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible (Leiden;
Boston: BRILL, 2018), 186.).
138
For more on this question, see García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 509.
139
See CIC can. 230: can. 910: CCEO can. 709.
140
For more on this topic, see Nathan Mitchell, Cult and Controversy: The Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 216–217.
141
RS n. 88: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum.
142
CIC can. 918: Code of Canon Law, 220. See CCEO can. 713.
93
Constance and Trent, however, defended it. Trent explained that Christ is present, whole and entire,
under either kind. Furthermore, lay faithful, and clerics that are not sacrificing, are not bound by
divine right to receive Holy Communion under both kinds. Vatican II restored the ancient practice of
Communion under both kinds, “in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See,”143 which the General
Instruction of the Roman Missal sets out in n. 283.144

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal explains that Holy Communion under both kinds
brings out more clearly the sign of the Eucharistic Banquet, the ratification of the New Covenant in
Jesus’ blood and the relationship between the Eucharistic Banquet and the Eschatological one.
However, it exhorts that the faithful should be carefully catechised regarding the Tridentine teaching
on this question, especially “that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even
under only one species, and hence that as regards the resulting fruits, those who receive under only
one species are not deprived of any grace that is necessary for salvation.” 145 and “that the Church, in
her administration of the Sacraments, has the power to lay down or alter whatever provisions, apart
from the substance of the Sacraments, that she judges to be more readily conducive to reverence for
the Sacraments and the good of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places.” 146

3.5.2.4. The Subject of Holy Communion

Only a baptised and living person can receive Holy Communion, if he or she has the required
dispositions. An unbaptised person cannot receive Holy Communion, since Baptism is “the door which
gives access to the other sacraments.” 147 In effect, the Eucharist, as food for the Christian life,
presupposes that he who receives it must already be a Christian, and it is through Baptism that we
become Christians. Secondly, Holy Communion is the consummation of participation in the
Eucharistic sacrifice, which participation implies offering with Christ and offering oneself with Christ.
Since this is only possible for those who, through Baptism, are members of Christ’s Mystical Body,
only they can receive Holy Communion. Since the sacraments are not administered to the dead, but
only to the viatores, that is, to Christians living on earth, the recipient of Holy Communion must, in
addition to being baptised, be a viator.

In line with St. Paul’s warning, that whoever wishes to communicate of the Lord’s body and
blood should first examine his conscience, the Church has always taught that the Christian who
wishes to receive the Lord in Holy Communion should be in the state of grace. In effect, he who
receives Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin professes, by his outward gesture, union with the
Lord, while inwardly persisting in the rejection of him through mortal sin. This mockery constitutes a
sacrilege. To avoid it, the Church teaches that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the
sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”148

143
SC n. 55: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 37.
144
Further dispositions of the Apostolic See regarding this matter were given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments, in the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25th March 2004), nn. 100-107.
145
GIRM, n. 282: “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” 71.
146
GIRM, n. 282: Ibid., 72.
147
CCC, n. 1213: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 315.
148
CCC, n. 1385: Ibid., 350.
94
 Since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the Church, it can only be worthily received in visible
communion with the Church.149 This includes being free from any censures that impede reception of
the sacraments and from any manifest grave sin. 150 Only in danger of death, or in case of a necessity
judged grave by the diocesan bishop or the Episcopal Conference can members of Churches and
Christian communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who do not have
access to the Eucharist from a minister of their own community, be admitted to Communion in the
Catholic Church. Such persons, in any case, must have asked for the sacrament spontaneously, must
profess the Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist and must be well disposed to receive it worthily. 151

Finally, whoever wishes to receive Holy Communion should have the right intention for
receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. “The right intention consists in this, that a person approach the
holy table, not from routine, vanity, or human motives, but because he wishes to please God, to be
more closely united with him in charity, and to overcome his infirmities and defects by means of this
divine remedy.”152 As part of this interior devotion, “care must be taken that holy communion be
preceded by a solid preparation and followed by a proper thanksgiving, according to each one’s
strength, condition and duties.”153 Part of the preparation consists in the observance of the prescribed
Eucharistic fast,154 and in presenting oneself with the appropriate “bodily demeanour (gestures,
clothing).”155

3.5.2.5 The Necessity of Holy Communion

Jesus not only commanded “all” his disciples (see Mt. 26:27; Mk 14:23) to receive Holy
Communion, but also declared it not merely “useful” but, in fact, “necessary” for the Christian life:
“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you” (Jn 6:53). He compared (see Lk 6:32-35; 49-51; 53-58) his flesh and blood, which he gives as
food and drink, respectively, in the Eucharist, to the manna which the Israelites fed on in the desert.
Pope St. Pius X comments that this comparison meant to indicate to the disciples that as our bodily life
requires daily nourishment with food, and as the Israelites ate manna everyday in the desert, so
should the Christian receive Holy Communion every day. 156 The pope explained that “the desire of
Jesus Christ and of the Church that all the faithful should daily approach the sacred banquet is
directed chiefly to this end, that the faithful, being united to God by means of the Sacrament, may

149
See EE n. 35.
150
See CIC can. 915, CCEO can. 712.
151
See CIC can. 844: CCEO can. 671.
152
ST, n. 2: DH, n. 3380: Pope Saint Pius X, “Decree ‘Sacra Tridentina Synodus,’ December 16 (20), 1905,” in Enchiridion
Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on
Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Heinrich Denzinger et al., 43rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 685.
153
ST, n. 4: DH, n. 3382: Ibid.
154
The current ecclesiastical law in the Latin rite requires that those who wish to receive Holy Communion should have abstained
from all food and drink, with the sole exception of water and medicines, for at least one hour before the communion. The aged
and the sick, and those who attend them, are, however, exempted from this rule. Similarly, a priest who has to celebrate two or
three Masses in the same day may take some food before the second or the third Mass, even if there is less than an hour before
Holy Communion (See CIC can. 919).
155
See CCC, n. 1387.
156
See Pope Saint Pius X, “‘Sacra Tridentina Synodus.’ Decree on Frequent and Daily Reception of Holy Communion (16
December 1905),” accessed April 14, 2020, https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5195.
95
thence derive strength to resist their sensual passions, to cleanse themselves from the stains of daily
faults, and to avoid these graver sins to which human frailty is liable.” 157

This does not mean, however, that sacramental communion is absolutely and unconditionally
necessary for eternal salvation. No one will fail to attain eternal salvation for not having had the
possibility of receiving sacramental communion, if that person is united with Christ and his Church
through grace working through faith, hope and charity. This union, which begins in Baptism, is
consummated in the Eucharist. When sacramental communion is impossible, however, this
consummation, can take place through desire, for example, by making a spiritual communion. 158 A
case in point is that of baptised children who die before their First Holy Communion. In regard to this,
St. Thomas explains that “by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact
of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as
they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention,
and, as a result, receive its reality.”159

3.5.2.6. The Frequency of Holy Communion

It is true that even when it would be possible, daily communion is not prescribed by divine
law. Nonetheless, right from the earliest times, Christians received Holy Communion frequently or
160

even daily. St. Luke tells us that the first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42; see also Acts 2:46). This practice went
on for centuries.

Beginning with the 4th century and throughout the Middle Ages, the frequency of Holy
Communion declined greatly. This was mostly due to the very rigorous nature of the canonical
penance, which involved barring penitents for long periods from receiving Holy Communion;
inadequate pastoral attention of the faithful, and excessively rigorous requirements imposed on those
who wanted to receive Holy Communion. The Council of Trent greatly encouraged frequent Holy
Communion, but the errors of Jansenism prevented many, from the 17 th century onwards, from
receiving Holy Communion frequently. The Jansenist doctrine tended to present the Eucharist as the
food of the strong, a reward for virtue, rather than as the medicine which the weak need to help them
in their spiritual struggle.

Pope St. Pius X, with his Decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, on Frequent and Daily Reception of
Holy Communion, strongly condemned this error, affirming that the primary purpose of Holy
Communion “is not that the honor and reverence due to our Lord may be safe-guarded, or that it may
serve as a reward or recompense of virtue bestowed on the recipients,” 161 but, rather, that it may
serve to free us from daily faults and preserve us from mortal sins. 162 For this reason, “the Church

157
Ibid.
158
See García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 515.
159
STh III, q. 73, a. 3, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 380.
160
See Pius X, “Sacra Tridentina.”
161
Ibid.
162
See Ibid.
96
strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more
often still, even daily.”163

The Church’s desire, that her faithful should, “in large numbers take an active part in the
sacrifice of the Mass each and every day and receive the nourishment of Holy Communion with a pure
and holy mind and offer fitting thanks to Christ the Lord for such a great gift” 164 is, perhaps, best
understood in light of the call of every Christian to personal holiness. 165 As Pope St. Pius X explained,
“by the frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is strengthened, the
spiritual life more abundantly sustained, the soul more richly endowed with virtues, and the pledge of
everlasting happiness more securely bestowed on the recipient.” 166 From this we can deduce that it
would be desirable for every Christian, unless impeded by more urgent duties or other proportionate
circumstances, to strive to participate daily in Mass, devoutly receiving the Lord in Holy Communion
and rendering him due thanks afterwards.

In ordinary circumstances, Current Church law does not permit anyone to receive Holy
Communion more than two times on the same day. The second reception, moreover, must be during a
Mass in which the recipient has participated. 167 The two exceptions to this law are the priest who finds
himself having to celebrate three Masses on a given day, and any Christian who finds himself in
danger of death. Even if the Christian has already received Holy Communion once or even twice (or
even three times, in case of a priest who has celebrated three Masses) on a given day, if the danger of
death presents itself, the Church strongly encourages him or her to receive the sacrament again, in the
form of Viaticum. The Viaticum, moreover, can be received outside Mass.168

According to current Church law, “after being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the
faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year ... This precept must be fulfilled
during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at another time during the year.” 169 It is
evident that this law expresses the barest minimum, not the most optimal practice that would
ordinarily be recommended to Christians.

3.5.2.7 First Holy Communion and Viaticum

The First Holy Communion and the Viaticum in danger of death are two particularly special
moments of receiving Holy Communion. In the early Church all three sacraments of Christian
Initiation were conferred together. However, from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) onwards, the
Latin Church postponed the First Holy Communion to the age of discretion. The intention was to avoid
abuses and to ensure an adequate previous catechetical formation, so that children could distinguish
the Eucharist from ordinary food and be able to receive it with due reverence and piety. Over the

163
CCC, n. 1389: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 351.
164
Pope St. Paul VI, MF n. 66: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 9.
165
See LG nn. 39-42. The Second Vatican Council taught that “all Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness
of Christian life and to the perfection of love” (LG n. 40: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Lumen Gentium,” 361.).
166
ST n. 6: Pius X, “Sacra Tridentina.”
167
See CIC can. 917.
168
See CIC can. 921 § 2.
169
CIC can. 920: Code of Canon Law, 220.
97
centuries, however, there were different interpretations of what the age of discretion was, to such an
extent that many adolescents would be denied the Eucharist. In the decree Quam Singulari, of 8th
August 1910, the Congregation of the Sacraments clarified that “the age of discretion both for
confession and for holy communion is that at which the child begins to reason, that is, at about the
seventh year, more or less.”170

The Church has, since ancient times, strongly recommended that those in danger of death, for
whichever cause – sickness, soldiers going out for battle, or any other life-threatening danger – should
receive the Lord in the Eucharist as Viaticum. In 325, the Council of Nicaea, presenting it as a well-
established custom, ruled that no penitent should be denied Viaticum, whatever their status in the
Church had been until then. The Church wishes to strengthen her faithful in their last transit, with the
Eucharist, which unites them with Christ and communicates the grace that they need in the most
important moment of their existence.171

3.6 The Fruits of Holy Communion

The Holy Eucharist is the greatest means of sanctification in the Church. As the memorial of our
Lord’s sacrifice, it makes present on our altars the sacrifice from which all grace flows for men. As the
sacrament of his body and blood, it substantially contains the very author of grace, who offers himself
as spiritual nourishment to those who receive him in Holy Communion. Consequently, none of the
other exercises and acts of piety can be compared, in sanctifying efficacy, with the devout celebration
of (or participation in) Mass and the worthy reception of Holy Communion. In fact, all of them draw in
some way from the Eucharist, and are meant, in some way, to serve as preparations for it.

In a summary of the salvific effects of the devout reception of Holy Communion, the Council of
Trent taught that

He [Christ] would also that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of
souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that
eateth me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from
daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins. He would, furthermore, have it be a pledge of
our glory to come, and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body whereof He
is the head, and to which He would fain have us as members be united by the closest bond of
faith, hope, and charity, that we might all speak the same things, and there might be no schisms
amongst us.172
170
QS, I: DH, n. 3530: Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, “Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments ‘Quam
Singulari,’ August 8, 1910,” in Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. Compendium
of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Heinrich Denzinger et al., 43rd ed. (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2012), 709.
171
See Frederick S. Paxton, Christianizing Death: The Creation of a Ritual Process in Early Medieval Europe (Ithaca; London:
Cornell University Press, 1996), 36.: Robert Cabié, The Eucharist, ed. Aimé Georges Martimort and Matthew J. O’Connell
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986), 236.
172
Council of Trent, Session 13, On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, chap. 2: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “On the
Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” 77. In the same line, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “Communion
with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant’s union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins and preserves him
from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also
reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ” (CCC, n. 1416: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355.).
The Catechism equally teaches that “the Eucharist is also an anticipation of the heavenly glory”( CCC, n. 1402: Ibid., 354.).
98
 Four fruits of Holy Communion can be identified in this text: the strengthening of the life of
Christ in us, separating us from sin (the remission of venial sins and preservation from mortal sins),
the foretasting of eternal glory and the strengthening of the Church’s unity. As it strengthens our life
in Christ, Holy Communion unites us with the entire Trinity and opens us ever more to the action of
the Holy Spirit.

3.6.1 Holy Communion Strengthens the Life of Christ in Us

“The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with
Christ Jesus.”173 As food for the spiritual life, Holy Communion causes a strengthening of the life of
Christ in those who receive it with the required dispositions, according to Christ’s promise: “Those
who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I
live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me” (Jn 6:56-57).

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church repeatedly taught, in different ways, that the Eucharist
effectively “christifies” the Christian. 174 St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that through the Eucharist we
become concorporeal and consanguineous with Christ. St. John Chrysostom teaches that in the
Eucharist we are united to Christ. According to St. Ambrose, through the Eucharist we participate of
Christ’s divinity. To St. Cyril of Alexandria, in the Eucharist we participate of Christ’s life. St. Leo the
Great says that the Eucharist makes us “christophers,” that is, “carriers of Christ.” St. Augustine
teaches that when we eat the Eucharist, we are transformed into Christ. St. Thomas Aquinas affirms
that “proprius effectus hujus sacramenti est conversio hominis in Christum (the proper effect of this
sacrament is the conversion of man into Christ).”175

This increase in union with Christ and assimilation to him, which the worthy reception of Holy
Communion confers, consists in an increase in sanctifying grace and in the theological virtues,
together with divine assistance in the Christian’s daily struggle. It is true that all the sacraments, when
worthily received, either give or increase sanctifying grace, and, with it, the theological virtues. None
of the others, however, can compare in sanctifying efficacy with the Eucharist, in which the very
author of grace is himself truly, really and substantially received. For this reason, of all the exercises
and practices of piety, that which most increases our holiness, that which will be the greatest cause of
glory for us in heaven, is the worthy and fervent reception of Christ in Holy Communion.

Together with this christification, the worthy reception of Holy Communion brings us into a
deeper union, in Christ, with the entire Trinity. Through sanctifying grace, the three persons of the
Blessed Trinity dwell within us, and we participate of their intimate life. When we grow in sanctifying
grace, that indwelling is intensified, we relate more intimately with the Father, with the Son and with
the Holy Spirit.

By uniting us with Christ, the Word incarnate who, marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit,
“gives the Spirit without measure” (Jn 3:34), the devout reception of Holy Communion not only

173
CCC, n. 1391: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 391.
174
See Robert E. Barron, Eucharist (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 134.
175
St. Thomas Aquinas, In Sent. IV, d. 12, q. 2, a. 1, s.: cited in García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 585. See Ibid., 584–585.
99
christifies, but also “pneumatises” us. It renews and intensifies the divinising action of the Holy Spirit
within us. The Roman liturgy expresses this effect of Holy Communion in a particular way in the
second Epicleses of the new Eucharistic Prayers. In Eucharistic Prayer II, for instance, the Church
implores God: “Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered
into one by the Holy Spirit.”176

By this renewal and strengthening of the sanctifying action of the Spirit of Christ in us, Holy
Communion renews and strengthens the effects of the sacraments received previously. It is thus that
it consummates, renews and strengthens the christification initiated in Baptism and Confirmation; it
renews and strengthens the graces by which some Christians are deputed to special tasks through
Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony, and it consummates the healing effects of the sacraments of
Penance and Anointing of the sick.

3.6.2 Holy Communion Separates Us from Sin

The devout reception of Holy Communion frees us from our venial sins; frees us – at least in
part – from the temporal punishments due to our sins, and preserves us from future mortal sins (and,
evidently, from many venial ones as well). While instituting the Eucharist, Jesus presented his body to
the disciples as “given for you” (Lk 22:19; see 1 Cor 11:24), and his blood as “poured out for many for
the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28; see Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20). Faith in this efficacy of the Eucharist in
separating us from sin has always been maintained in the Catholic Church. When the Protestant
Reformers denied the propitiatory effect of the Eucharist, Trent reaffirmed it. 177 Regarding the efficacy
of Holy Communion in particular, in separating us from sin, Trent offered its teaching in the already-
cited second chapter of the Decree on the Host Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

St. Thomas explains that, considered in itself, the Eucharist “has from Christ’s Passion the
power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins.”178
However, forgiving mortal sins is not the proper function for which this sacrament was instituted.
This is for two reasons. First, as natural food is not taken by dead bodies but, rather, by living persons,
to nourish their bodily life, so is Holy Communion not received by those in mortal sin but, rather, by
those in the state of grace, to nourish that life of grace which they already have. Secondly, the
principle fruit of Holy Communion is union with Christ. For this reason, one who consciously receives
Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin commits a sacrilege (see 1 Cor 11:29), because he
hypocritically pretends to welcome Christ into himself, while in reality he is rejecting him through his
persistence in mortal sin. It is thus that the mortal sinner ought to first receive deliverance from his
sin, through Baptism or Penance, before receiving Holy Communion. Nonetheless, if a person who is
guilty of mortal sin but is sincerely not aware of it and, at the same, has no attachment to it, receives
the Holy Communion in good faith, it frees him, per accidens, from that sin and unites him to Christ.179

176
OM n. 105: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 651.
177
See Council of Trent, Session 22, On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, chap. 2 and can. 3.
178
STh III, q. 79, a. 3, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 423.
179
See STh III, q. 79, a. 3, respondo.
100
 Holy Communion frees us from venial sins, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
“as bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends
to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.”180 This sacrament inflames
charity in us, both as a habit (virtue) and as an act. The act of charity thus enkindled unites us more
firmly to Christ, freeing us from our venial sins if we are (at least virtually) sorry for them. 181

By fortifying the habit of charity in us, Holy Communion gives us the strength and the
motivation to always love God from that moment onwards, avoiding sin and the occasions of sin. In
this way, the devout reception of Holy Communion preserves us from future mortal sins. As the
Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “the more we share the life of Christ and progress in his
friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin.” 182 Holy Communion also
preserves us from many venial sins, especially from fully deliberate ones. It is impossible, however,
without a special grace from God, to avoid all venial sins.183

Finally, when received worthily, Holy Communion confers the remission, at least in part, of the
temporal punishment due to sin, in the measure of the recipient’s devotion. In explaining this effect,
St. Thomas first notes that the principal effect of Holy Communion is union with Christ. He then
explains that “because this union is the effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains
forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a consequence, and by
concomitance with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the
entire punishment, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor.” 184

3.6.3 Holy Communion Strengthens the Unity of the Church

By strengthening the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, Holy Communion
strengthens the unity of the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body, into which all the faithful are
incorporated through Baptism.185 As St. Paul teaches, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a
sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because
there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:16-17).

This ecclesiological effect of the Eucharist has always been affirmed by the Catholic Tradition.
The Didache, for instance, understands the Eucharistic bread to be a symbolic expression of the
Church’s unity in Christ. According to St. Cyril of Alexandria, by the Eucharist we are fused into one

180
CCC, n. 1394: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 352.
181
This, however, does not make the practice of frequent confession superfluous for those who are in the state of grace and
frequently receive Holy Communion. It makes sense for such Christians to frequently receive Penance as well, in order to receive
its peculiar sacramental grace, one of whose effects is a particular “increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle” (CCC, n.
1496: Ibid., 371.).
182
CCC, n. 1395: Ibid., 352.
183
The Council of Trent solemnly defined that “if any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that
therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified: or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all
sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin: let
him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session 6, On Justification, can. 23: Council of Trent (1546-1563), “Decree on
Justification,” in The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, trans. J. Waterworth (London:
Dolman, 1848), 47.).
184
STh III, q. 79, a. 5, respondo: Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 424.
185
See CCC, nn. 1396 and 1416.
101
single thing. To St. John Chrysostom, Christ gave himself as food in the Eucharist in order to gather us
into one body. To St. Augustine, the proper effect of the Eucharist is the unity of Christians as Christ’s
body.186 In the post-Tridentine epoch, however, due to the by then more pressing need to clearly
express the Church’s nature as a visible reality in society, less attention was paid to her nature as a
mystical-spiritual communion, continuously nourished by the Eucharist. In the 20 th century, this
ecclesiological fruit of the Eucharist was again brought into focus by such authors as Henry de Lubac,
and by Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis, by Vatican II (especially in Lumen Gentium and
Sacrosanctum Concilium) and by Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

The Eucharist, both as Sacrifice and as Communion, exercises an “original” and “constitutive”
causality with respect to the Church. This causality comes from Christ, who is present with his
sacrifice in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is an original cause of the Church in the sense that the Church
was born of the Eucharist. It is a constitutive cause of the Church in the sense that without it the
Church, here on earth, would not fully maintain her nature as Christ’s Mystical Body that is perfectly
united to her head, even if all the other sacraments remained. The reason is that while the faithful are
touched by Christ’s salvific power in the other sacraments, it is in the Eucharist that they are united to
him, receiving him truly, really, substantially and personally. 187 This is why the Church prays, in
Eucharistic Prayer IV of the Roman Missal: “Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice which you yourself have
provided for your Church, and grant to all who partake of this one Bread and one Chalice that,
gathered into one body by the Holy Spirit, they may truly become a living sacrifice in Christ to the
praise of your glory.”188

This ecclesial unity which the Eucharist strengthens is not only interior, but also has a visible
dimension. This visible dimension entails communion in faith, in the sacraments and in the
hierarchical order. Nonetheless, as Pope St. John Paul II teaches, the Eucharist “cannot be the starting-
point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to
consolidate and bring to perfection.” 189 For this reason, “it is never legitimate to concelebrate [Mass]
in the absence of full communion.”190

Finally, the devout reception of Holy Communion strengthens the Church’s mission and makes
it fruitful. The love that the faithful receive in Holy Communion impels them to share it with other
people, to bring them to Christ, so that they, too, many enjoy God’s love in Christ. In addition, the

186
See García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 593–594.
187
See LG n. 1. As Pope St. John Paul II explains, “at the last supper ... the Apostles ‘were both the seeds of the new Israel and
the beginning of the sacred hierarchy’. By offering them his body and his blood as food, Christ mysteriously involved them in the
sacrifice which would be completed later on Calvary. By analogy with the Covenant of Mount Sinai, sealed by sacrifice and the
sprinkling of blood, the actions and words of Jesus at the Last Supper laid the foundations of the new messianic community, the
People of the New Covenant. The Apostles, by accepting in the Upper Room Jesus’ invitation: ‘Take, eat’, ‘Drink of it, all of you’
(Mt 26:26-27), entered for the first time into sacramental communion with him. From that time forward, until the end of the age,
the Church is built up through sacramental communion with the Son of God who was sacrificed for our sake” (EE n. 21: John
Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11.).
188
OM n. 122: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, “Order of Mass,” 659. The causal relation
between the Eucharist and the Church is actually reciprocal: the Eucharist makes the Church, and the Church makes the
Eucharist. However, the Church’s causality is not original and constitutive of the Eucharist. Rather, it is a “derived” causality,
stemming from Christ’s command. The Church causes the Eucharist by celebrating it, according to Christ’s command.
189
EE n. 35: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 17.
190
EE n. 45, Ibid., 21.
102
graces that are obtained in the sacrament fecundate this apostolic activity, so that it brings forth
abundant fruit. Thus is fulfilled Jesus’ missionary mandate: “Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations ... And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt 28:19-20). In this way, the
Eucharist reveals itself as the source and summit of the Church’s mission. 191

3.6.4 Holy Communion Gives Us a Pledge and Foretaste of the Glory of Heaven

In the discourse at Capernaum, Jesus promised the glory of heaven to those who receive him in
Holy Communion. He said: “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise
them up on the last day” (Jn 6:54). In the discourse to the Apostles during the Last Supper, “He said to
them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat
it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Lk 22:15-16); “I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit
of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom ” (Mt 26:29); “I confer on
you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my
kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk 22:29-30). St. Paul
highlights this eschatological dimension of the Eucharist when he declares: “whenever you eat this
bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). For this reason,
whenever she celebrates the Eucharist, the Church, since ancient times, proclaims the mystery of
faith: “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20; see 1 Cor 16:22).192

The Church’s Tradition gives constant witness to this eschatological dimension of the
Eucharist. St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality.” St. Cyril of
Alexandria called it the “seed of immorality.” Similar expressions were used by Sts. Irenaeus, Gregory
of Nyssa, Ambrose and Augustine. Trent, in the already cited text of the Decree on the Most Holy
Sacrament of the Eucharist, affirms the Eucharist to be “a pledge of our glory to come.” As a witness of
the Catholic Tradition, Pope Leo XIII comments that “the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist is both
the source and the pledge of blessedness and of glory, and this, not for the soul alone, but for the body
also ... That to this source man’s soul and body will be indebted for both these boons has been the
constant teaching of the Church.” 193 According to the Second Vatican Council, Christ brings men to
himself in the Church so that he may, “by nourishing them with his own Body and Blood, make them
partakers of his glorious life.”194

We can say that Holy Communion, simultaneously as it gives us a foretaste here on earth of
that union with God, with Christ and with the blessed which we shall fully enjoy in heaven, gives us
the strength to fulfil our mission here on earth, in order to merit that heavenly bliss. In this regard,
Pope St. John Paul II teaches that “a significant consequence of the eschatological tension inherent in
the Eucharist is also the fact that it spurs us on our journey through history and plants a seed of living
hope in our daily commitment to the work before us.”195
191
See SCar n. 84.
192
See CCC, n. 1403: García-Ibáñez, Don y misterio, 603.
193
MC n. 9: Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical on the Holy Eucharist “Mirae Caritatis,” 28 May 1902 (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, n.d.),
5, accessed April 30, 2020, http://c.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28051902_mirae-
caritatis.pdf.
194
LG, n. 48: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), “Lumen Gentium,” 369–370.
195
EE n. 20: John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 10.
103