The Lord's Supper or The Eucharist
- Benjamin Lee
- 4 hours ago
- 7 min read
Introduction
Everything I’m about to share I verified by visiting a Catholic Church, speaking to someone there, and also picking up a booklet they give out for free! I told them who I was, where I preach, and why I was there.
The Eucharist: What Catholics refer to as the Lord’s Supper.
Webster’s Dictionary: “Communion.”
Word: From the Greek Word ‘Eucharistia’ which means thanksgiving or gratitude. It’s related to the Greek verb ‘Eucharisteo’ meaning ‘to give thanks.’ In Matthew 26:27; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24 the Greek text uses forms of Eucharisteo.
The Belief: The elements LITERALLY becomes the body and blood of Jesus.
“From the booklet Sacraments: The Seven Spiritual Wonders of the World: “The Catholic Church takes the words of John 6:53-55 literally.”
Even though it remains in its regular substance. It’s believed when the priest pronounces sacred words “This is my body…” the bread and the fruit of the vine are transformed into the literal body and blood of the Savior. “The priest at each Mass repeats the words of Jesus over the bread and wine. An ordained priest is also required for the consecration of the bread and wine. The priest stands in the place of Christ, the one High Priest, and therefore must be a man. In the words of the consecration at each Mass, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, the very Soul and Divinity, of Christ – a process is formally referred to as transubstantiation.”
Also: It’s believed Jesus is LITERALY being sacrificed again. This is why it’s been called the ‘sacrifice of the mass.’ According to the dictum handed down by the Council of Trent, this sacrifice is identical with the type of sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.
For many centuries in Roman Catholic history, lay members commonly received only the bread while the priest alone drank from the cup, a practice known as ‘communion under one kind.’ The lay members eat only the bread (wafer), but supposedly he receives both elements (flesh and blood) within the bread. Some may offer both now. Talking to someone at the Catholic Church, they have only had the bread (which they refer to as the ‘host’) since 2020, due to COVID.
The priest at the taking of the Fruit of the Vine also adds a little bit of water.
This is the doctrine of Transubstantion. It developed later in church history.
The Eucharist is part of the 7 Sacraments which derives from the Latin ‘sacramentum.’ The meaning is “a thing set apart as holy.” These are Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, the Eucharist, Sacred Orders, Holy Matrimony, and Extreme Unction. By Medieval Times (C.A. 500-1500), the Roman Church had become deeply steeped in considerable error. The Augustinian cleric, Hugo of St. Victor (1096-1141) characterized the sacraments as outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. Some Protestants, while rejecting five of the so-called sacraments, nonetheless adorned both baptism and the Eucharist.
The formal doctrine of transubstantiation: not defined until the medieval period, especially at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Trent in 1551.
This is a part of Catholic Theology. But is it Biblical Reality? NO!
Why is any of this important? The Eucharist, along with infant baptism, and sprinkling for baptism along with many other false doctrines are a result of a departure from the faith, 1 Timothy 4:1-4; 2 Timothy 4:1. What do scripture teach concerning the Lord’s Supper? And why do many believe the false doctrine of Transubstantion? First, let’s look at the truth: God’s word.
The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament
Designed by Christ
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. “Lord’s Supper is found in 1 Corinthians 11:20.
Jesus partook of it with His apostles prior to His death, Matthew 26:26-29.
All About Christ
Notice what Jesus emphasized. “Take, eat; this is My body…”
“Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sin.” Matthew 26:27-28.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, as Paul rehearsed the words of Jesus, we learn how this meal is to be done in remembrance of Jesus.
“We proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes…”
It’s to Be Done Often
It’s to be done often, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
The frequence: The first day of the week, Acts 20:7.
Through an approved apostolic example and necessary inference.
A Meal That Can Bring Judgment
It’s a meal that can bring judgment, 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.
An Unseen Guest Is Present
Matthew 26:26-29. “I will not drink this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Jesus had partaken this meal with the apostles physically, but that would change.
In the kingdom (which is present), Christ would be them and the saints. He wasn’t literally eating and drinking with them, but through His death they had fellowship with Him. The kingdom exists. We’re in the kingdom of God. We have communion (this word is ‘koinonia’ and means fellowship) with Him, 1 Corinthians 10:16.
There’s No Variety
The Elements are the Unleavened Bread and Fruit of the Vine, Matthew 26:26-29. The Unleavened Bread represents His body which was given for us. Through His body and sacrifice, we have been delivered from death.
The fruit of the vine “Was a Jewish idiom for the juice of the grape.” The fruit of the vine represents Christ’s blood of the New Testament. It is through His blood that we can obtain redemption from our sins. The emphasis in the New Testament is NOT the container, but rather the contents the container held.
Comparing the New Testament with Catholic Tradition
Everyone is to eat and drink. Yet in the Catholic church only the priests drink the cup.
It’s to be done to remember the sacrifice of Jesus. It’s not Jesus being sacrificed over and over again, Hebrews 9:28. To believe so is to diminish what He accomplished on the cross.
After giving thanks in Matthew 26:28-29 Jesus still referred to it as “The Fruit of the Vine.”
Paul repeatedly calls it “Bread, Cup, Proclamation.” Even after the prayer/blessing, Paul still calls it bread and not the literal body of Jesus. If it literally changed, why still call it bread?
As we give thanks, we’re not making some mystical statement asking God to somehow change the emblems into the literal body of Jesus.
There’s no Bible evidence of Jesus, the apostles, or saints believing or teaching that they were literally consuming the physical body and blood of Jesus. Rather, these elements are symbols to help us remember His sacrifice. So, why do so many believe this to be true?
Misinterpreting John 6
Part of the confusion that’s led some to believe this is their understanding of John 6.
In John 6:51-54, Jesus says one must eat His flesh and drink His blood if they want to have eternal life. Even the Jews at that time grumbled with these words.
Some believe John 6 is about the Lord’s Supper. That’s false!
This chapter has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper. Even some brethren are wrong.
First: The Lord’s Supper had not yet been instituted by Jesus, John 13-17.
Second, the context is about believing in Jesus.
John 6:1-15: Jesus early had fed 5,000. Then He walked on water, John 6:18-22.
The people searched for Jesus, John 6:25-26. They were seeking Him for more food. Jesus speaks of food that endures to eternal life, John 6:27. Is that literal food we consume through our mouth and into our belly? No!
Rather, it’s belief in Jesus, John 6:29. This chapter is emphasizing faith in Jesus!
Jesus repeatedly connects “eating” with faith, John 6:35. “He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and He who believes in Me shall never thirst.” Are we take that literally? If so, we’re all in trouble, because we continue to get hungry and thirsty! Even Paul was, 2 Corinthians 11:27.
During His ministry, Jesus at times would use figurative language, John 16:23-29.
He would describe Herod as a “Fox” Luke 13:32. He wasn’t a literal fox!
Jesus described Himself as “The Door.” Are we take that as a literal door with a frame? He calls Himself the vine, John 15:5. He calls disciples the salt of the earth, Matthew 5:13. Are we take these literally? No one does! Now, connect that to when Jesus says, “This is My body.” Here, He was speaking figuratively.
But what does it mean then when He says, “Eat My flesh?” In John 6:50-56, Jesus is emphasizing He’s the source of eternal life. If one is to have eternal life, they must have faith in Him. This is about fellowship with Jesus. “Abiding” language is used. One eats and drinks of Jesus when…
They hear and our taught by Him, John 6:44-45. When they believe and abide.
When they live for Him. This chapter has nothing to do with Transubstantiation or the LS.
Literal Interpretation Creates Serious Problems
Jesus would be commanding cannibalism. The disciples would have violated Jewish prohibitions concerning blood, Leviticus 17:10-12.
Christ’s physical body would supposedly be present in thousands of places simultaneously. Scripture presents it as: Symbolic, Memorial, Spiritual Fellowship.
Apostolic Tradition or Man-Made Tradition
What’s happened with the Catholic church, is that they have departed from scripture.
First century saints were to abide in the apostles doctrine, Acts 2:42.
Anything that conflicted with apostolic teaching was/is to be rejected, 1 John 4:1-6.
We’re to stand firm in the apostles tradition, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Paul is speaking of words that are the very words of God, 1 Thessalonians 2:10-13.
When people depart from Scripture they fall into error.
When examining the first century church, worship was quite simple, Acts 2:42-47.
The Catholic Church is an invention of men. See Matthew 16:18.
This should encourage us to never lose the desire to search the scriptures, Acts 17:11.
Some Catholics would have us believe we’re missing out if not partaking the Eucharist.
Conclusion
Jesus is head over His church, Ephesians 1:21-22. The King resides in Heaven.
The Eucharist, Infant Baptism, Sprinkling give people false hope. They are to be rejected. True hope is found in Jesus and the words recorded for us.
Comments