The Wedding Feast at Cana

The Eucharist: The Wedding Feast of the Lamb

Eucharist: What is it, why is It?

In the Old Testament the shared enjoyment of bread and salt, or of salt alone, served to establish lasting covenants (cf. Num 18:19; 2 Chron 13:5; cf. Hauck, TDNT I, p. 228). Salt is regarded as a guarantee of durability. It is a remedy against putrefaction, against the corruption that pertains to the nature of death. To eat is always to hold death at bay—it is a way of preserving life. The “eating of salt” by Jesus after the Resurrection, which we therefore encounter as a sign of new and everlasting life, points to the risen Lord’s new banquet with his followers. It is a covenant-event, and in this sense it has an inner association with the Last Supper, when the Lord established the New Covenant. So the mysterious cipher of eating salt expresses an inner bond between the meal on the eve of Jesus’ Passion and the risen Lord’s new table fellowship: he gives himself to his followers as food and thus makes them sharers in his life, in life itself.[6]

A contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means “to cut,” and hence a covenant is a “cutting,” with reference to the cutting or dividing of [one animal] into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them [emphasis SML], in making a covenant (Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18, 19) [Thus the flesh, i.e., our salt of DNA, is involved in the covenant — SML]. … The corresponding word in the New Testament Greek is diatheke, which is, however, rendered “testament” generally in the Authorized Version. It ought to be rendered, just as the word berith of the Old Testament, “covenant.”[7]

The term covenant is also used to designate the regular succession of day and night (Jer. 33:20), the Sabbath (Ex. 31:16), circumcision (Gen. 17:9, 10), and in general any ordinance of God (Jer. 34:13, 14). A “covenant of salt” signifies an everlasting covenant, in the sealing or ratifying of which salt, as an emblem of perpetuity, is used (Num. 18:19; Lev. 2:13; 2 Chr. 13:5).[8]

What Does Ezekiel’s Dream of the Temple Have to Do with the Eucharist?

And this [The Eucharist] is indeed that clean oblation which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer it, which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place clean to His name.” (Session xxii, Ch. 1). The offering of this clean oblation was predicted by the prophet Malachias in the following words: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a clean oblation.” (Malachi 1:10-11). All the Fathers of the Church consider this passage to refer to the Sacrifice of the Mass [i.e., the wedding feast of the Lamb — SML]. For this prophecy does not find its fulfillment in the Old Testament, but in the New, wherein also are fulfilled the words which were spoken by God the Father to His Son: “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance.” (Ps. 2: 7-8). This was accomplished when the heathen were converted to the Faith by the preaching of the Apostles. The sacrifice here predicted by Malachias cannot be that which was offered by Christ on the Cross, as non-Catholics assert; for that was made in one place only, on Calvary, not in every place, as the prophet declares. Nor can the supposition be entertained that the prophecy refers to a sacrifice of praise or of good works [on the altar of the heart — SML], for these are no oblation in the proper sense of the word [see endnote for proper definition of “oblation”[13]], nor are they always a “clean oblation;” prophet says: “All our justices are before Thee as a filthy rag.” (Is. 64: 6).[14]]

As a high priest in the OT had priests of the Levites who offered sacrifice on the altar; the High Priest in the order of Melchisedech, Jesus, made his Apostles priests when he said, do this in memory of me.[15]

What Does the Eucharist “Do” For Us? How Does it Do It?

Unless You Eat my Flesh & Drink my Blood, You Have no Life in You — But WHY???

When I [Jesus] am ascended, thou shalt see nothing, thou shalt have everything. Thou shalt sit down under My shadow with great delight, and My fruit shall be sweet to thy taste. Thou shalt have Me whole and entire. I will be near thee, I will be in thee [not the kind of language expressing mere friendship — SML]; I will come into thy heart a whole Saviour, a whole Christ — in all My fullness as God and man — in the awful virtue of that Body and Blood, which has been taken into the Divine Person [In his book, The Mystical Body of Christ, Sheen said, all acts performed by Jesus, the Son of God, are attributed to the One Person of the Son of God — not one or the other of the two natures individually, but both hypostatically united natures in One Person — SML] of the Word, and is indivisible from it, and has atoned for the sins of the world — not by external contact, not by partial possession, not by momentary approaches, not by a barren manifestation, but inward in presence, and intimate in fruition [again, not the language of mere friendship], a principle of life and a seed of immortality, that thou mayest ‘bring forth fruit unto God’” [Cardinal St. John Neuman, Lectures on Justification, p. 216-219].[16]

[v. 54] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [v. 55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [v. 56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [v. 57] As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [v. 58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever (John 6:54–58).

1) It is obvious that everyone listening to his words were interpreting them literally, as evidenced by their grumbling and their repulsion towards what he was saying, not to mentioned their abandonment of their discipleship as a direct consequence of their interpretation of his words;

2) Even when his Apostles characterized Jesus’ words as being hard to accept, Jesus did not follow his normal practice regarding symbolic sayings/stories, which was by clarifying and explaining it to them. There was no need for Jesus to do this. They understood him correctly, so he was willing to let them — there wasn’t anything needing to be clarified, and;

3) Jesus doubled-down on wording.

1) An examination of a Eucharistic controversy that occurred in the 800s between, primarily, Paschasius Radbertus and the Monk Ratramnus of Corbie;

2) An examination of the meaning of substantial presence using sense-based arguments;

3) An examination of the Dogmas through the writings of others; and,

4) A brief examination of a deeper understanding of light as it relates to the substance of our human nature.      

Real Food & Real Drink

But one who burns strongly in lust either asleep or awake should take care not to add flame to his fire. How? Let him not inflame himself by those foods that stir up lust. He should humbly abstain from the flesh of animals that come forth from their mothers naked and without covering, that is, beasts; for there is a fire of heat in them that is not as great in the flesh of birds, which are not born uncovered but as an egg covered with a shell, and therefore have less inflammatory power. And he should also abstain from excessive wine, lest by too much drinking his veins become filled with noxious blood and wickedly heated with ardent fire.[22]

Now the men of the city said to Eli′sha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him. Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the Lord, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Eli′sha spoke (2 Kgs. 2:19-22).

Early Eucharistic Controversy

Taking his lead from St Ambrose of Milan, Radbertus insisted that the true, historical body of Jesus Christ is literally present in [the] Eucharist, in such a way that, in receiving Christ’s true body and blood, the communicant has united with Christ physically and directly [SML]. Agreeing with St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Radbertus affirmed that the image of God is located in the whole human person — body and soul (and not just soul) — with the result that salvation is to be seen in terms of union between the whole human person and the whole person of Christ (body, blood, soul and divinity) who makes himself efficaciously, literally and physically present (and communicable) in the Eucharist … [Radbertus rejected] the dualistic separation of body and soul (which some Latin theologians had imported from Greek theology).[50]

1) “[Radbertus] defended himself with some skill against the attacks of his critics, especially in his Epistola ad Frudegardum. But a more thorough vindication of St. Paschasius was made by Gerbert, afterward, Pope Sylvester II (d. 1003), who, in a work bearing the same title “De corpore et sanguine Domini,” contended that the doctrine of St. Paschasius was correct in every particular [SML].”[53]

2) Paschasius is a canonized saint. If he were an unrepentant (i.e., formal) heretic, he could never have been canonized. Furthermore, I am not aware of any record of him ever having repented or recanted of any of his teachings because he had nothing for which he needed to recant or repent. More importantly, the Church claims infallibility in its declarations of sainthood. Incidentally, Declarations of sainthood are infallible judgments of the Church[54] [Note: St. Paschasius Radbertus (9^th century) should not be confused with St. Paschasius (6^th century). I have read the work of others attributing information that should have been attributed to the former but was incorrectly attributed to the latter].

3) Emperor Charles the Bald, who originally had difficulty accepting Radbertus’ treatise, eventually came to accept the truthfulness of his writings.[55]

4) Radbertus’ adversary (Retramnus of Corbie) “was determined to be heretical and placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1559, but was removed in 1900. Both [Retramnus and Radbertus — SML] wrote in imprecise wording.”[56]

5) According to Elizabeth Francis Rogers, “His book Of the Body and Blood of the Lord was the first to elaborate for western Europe the doctrine of the miraculous conversion of the elements in the Eucharist, which in the twelfth century received the name of Transubstantiation [See Gore, Dissertations on Subjects Connected With the Incarnation, p. 236. ‘Paschasius appears beyond all reasonable question to teach a doctrine of transubstantiation’].”[57]

6) Noted theologian, Fr. John Hardon writes, “After eleven centuries, Pius XII has ‘canonized’ Paschasius’ teaching by incorporating it, almost verbatim, in the Mediator Dei.”[58]

7) In OSV’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Jordan Aumann O.P. writes, “In the ninth century, Paschasius Radbertus stated clearly the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence.”[59] Aumann wrote this sentence in a sub-section titled “Transubstantiation.”

The Book of John Scotus on the Eucharist, invoked by Berengarius of Tours in support of his [heretical] error, and which was condemned by the Synod of Vercelli (1050) probably was written by the Monk Ratramnus of Corbie (✝ after 868), De corpore et sanguine Domini. Ratramnus, it is true, did not deny the Real Presence, but in contrast to Paschasius Radbertus (✝ about 860), who maintained the complete identity of the sacramental body with the historical body of Christ, [Ratramnus] strongly emphasized the different way in which the Body of Christ was manifested in the Eucharist, and applied to the Eucharist the expressions, similitudo, imago, pignus. Others who attacked the exaggerated realism of Paschasius Radbertus were Rabanus Maurus, in a lost letter to the Abbot Eigil of Prüm , and the Monk Gottschalk, in the Dicta cuiusdam sapientis de corpore et sanguine Domini adversus Ratbertum, which is erroneously ascribed to Rabanus Maurus ... Berengarius of Tours (✝ 1088) denied the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine and the Real Presence of Christ. He saw in the Eucharist merely a figure (figura, similitudo) of the body and blood of Christ transfigured in Heaven.[60]

Sense-based Arguments Favoring Transubstantiation and a Physical (but not mortal) Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

“It is the spirit that gives life [true, no matter the interpretation of the words that follow], the flesh is of no avail […in communicating life, but only in so much as it serves as an instrumental channel of Grace / Life, just as is the case with Jesus’ body]; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life [in other words, stop thinking carnally — to the complete exclusion of the spiritual — about what I am saying]” (Jn. 6:63).

Aquinas, too, tells us the reason God hides the physical and carnal (but also glorified and transcendent) body and blood of Jesus under the accidents of bread and wine. He tells us; “Why see we not the flesh? Because, if the flesh were seen, it would revolt us to such a degree, that we should be unable to partake of it. And therefore, in condescension to our infirmity, the mystical food is given to us under an appearance suitable to our Minds [I would add: but it is physical flesh and blood, nonetheless].”[62]

The same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the Sacrament… as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done “to represent the truth,” namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ’s body and blood are truly in this Sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (Q. 77, A. 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this Sacrament.[66]

1) In the case of the miracle at Buenos Aires, Columbia University Professor Frederick Zugibe, perhaps the greatest expert in the field of cardiac pathologies and forensic medicine of the heart, said that at the time the Eucharistic tissue samples were delivered to him, the cells of the heart muscle tissue were beating.[69] This phenomenon is consistent with what the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us about Jesus’ glorified body. Pohle writes, “The glorified Christ, Who ‘dieth now no more’ (Rom, vi, 9) has an animate Body through whose veins courses His life’s Blood [SML note — I would also add: His blood flows because of the beating of his heart (which produces electromagnetic energy — created light which science has proven to affect others[70])] under the vivifying influence of the spiritual soul.”[71]

2) In the writings of Cesar of Heisterbach, the story is told of a recluse who had devoted herself to a life of penance and prayer. She had a special devotion to the Holy Mass. Unfortunately, the devil had succeeded in planting severe doubts in her mind about the Truth of Transubstantiation. Nevertheless, God had compassion for this humble servant and allowed a miracle to take place. When the priest was saying Mass, he carelessly overturned the chalice after the Consecration. To the priest’s horror, the philosophical accident of wine had assumed the appearance and color of blood. After Mass, the priest tried every way he could think of to clean the blood-stained corporal. But to no avail. The following week the priest, in tears, held the corporal up for the congregants to see and explained what had happened. He was convinced that God allowed this to happen to firm up the faith of those who entertained doubt about the Truth of the Dogma of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence: so he made a point to take the corporal around to show others. Eventually, he went to the dwelling of the recluse. At seeing the blood-stained corporal, she fell to her knees and wept bitter tears of regret for her disbelief. Then, with these words, she made a public confession of faith: “I steadfastly believe that in the consecrated chalice the true, natural [SML] Blood of Christ is really present, the same that was shed for us upon the Cross.”[72] After returning home and again putting the corporal into the water, he was amazed to see the stain immediately disappear. It seems evident that it was for the benefit of the recluse that this miracle had occurred.[73]

3) Fr. Peter Cavagnelas, a monk of the Order of St. Jerome, was having terrible doubts about whether or not the Blood of Christ was really present in the sacred Host. One day he was saying Mass. After saying the words of the Canon in which the angels are asked to carry these gifts to the altar, a cloud descended and completely surrounded both the Host and the Chalice, blocking the view of Fr. Cavagnelas. Alarmed, he made a sincere act of contrition and lifted his heart in prayerful petition. When the cloud lifted, the Sacred Host was suspended in midair above the chalice. While he starred at the Host, blood began to drip from the Host into the chalice. This phenomenon continued until the exact same amount of Blood was in the chalice as there had been wine prior to the Consecration.[74]

4) Blessed John of Alvernio was known to have celebrated Mass very devoutly. At a High Mass on the feast of the Assumption, he was overcome with love for Christ. At the Consecration, Blessed John beheld a smiling infant — the entire corpus of the baby Jesus — in his hands. At the sight of this Most Holy Infant, Fr. John’s heart was pierced, and his bodily strength was sapped; he fell into a state of ecstasy.[75]

Writings of Others Relating to Transubstantiation and the Physical Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

The simplest treatment of the subject was that offered by the Schoolmen, especially St. Thomas (III:76:4), They reduced the mode of being to the mode of becoming, i.e., they traced back the mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body to the Transubstantiation; for a thing has to so “be” as it was in “becoming”, Since [by the power of words] the immediate result is the presence of the Body of Christ, its quantity, present merely [concomitantly], must follow the mode of existence peculiar to its substance, and, like the latter, must exist without division and extension, i.e., entirely in the whole Host and entirely in each part thereof. In other words, the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, not after the manner of “quantity”, but of “substance.”

Later Scholasticism (Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Billuart, and others) tried to improve upon this explanation along other lines by distinguishing between internal and external quantity. By internal quantity … is understood that entity, by virtue of which a corporeal substance merely possesses “aptitudinal extension”, i.e., the “capability” of being extended in tri-dimensional space. External quantity, on the other hand … is the same entity, but in so far as it follows its natural tendency to occupy space and actually extends itself in the three dimensions. While aptitudinal extension or internal quantity is so bound up with the essences [aka, substance] of bodies that its separability from them involves a metaphysical contradiction, external quantity is, on the other hand, only a natural consequence and effect, which can be so suspended and withheld by the First Cause, that the corporeal substance, retaining its internal quantity, does not extend itself into space.[78]

All the standard commentators on the Summa understand St. Thomas to mean that there is only an extrinsic difference between the Eucharistic and natural Christ when he says that in one case the mode of being is natural and in the other sacramental. Thus [St. Robert] Bellarmine, in commenting on this part of the Summa and also explaining the pertinent words of [the Council of] Trent, says: “The Body of Christ, because of its special mode of existence in the Eucharist, does not express any relation to surrounding bodies. Therefore, we can truly say that the Body of Christ, as it is in the Eucharist, is true, real, natural, living, quantified, having color, and that His flesh is corporeal, not spiritual [SML]. But we do not say that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is sensible, visible, tangible, or extended, although it is such in heaven. The reason is because these names imply a relation to surrounding bodies, which the Body of Christ does not have in the Eucharist.” [Bellarminus, “De Sacramento Eucharistiae,” V, lib. 1, cap. 2 (Naples, 1858), 250].[88]

1.)  “Shortly after [the Council of] Trent, Pope St. Pius V authorized the publication of the Roman Catechism which built on the Council of Trent … Regarding the Real Presence, the pastors were told to explain that ‘in this sacrament is contained not only the true Body of Christ-and that means everything that goes to make up a true body, such as bones, nerves, and so on-but also Christ whole and entire.’ Consequently the Eucharist contains Jesus Christ in the fullness of his Divinity and the completeness of his humanity … when we speak of Transubstantiation, we mean that the whole substance of bread and wine, its ‘breadness’ and ‘wineness,’ is replaced by the living and glorified Jesus Christ … Is there any real difference between Jesus in heaven and Jesus in the Eucharist? No, it is the same Jesus ... The living, breathing Jesus Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament.”[94]

2).  “[Jesus] is in the Eucharist with His human mind and will [which is] united with the Divinity, with His hands and feet, His face and features, with His eyes and lips and ears and nostrils, with His affections and emotions and, with emphasis, with His living, pulsating, physical Sacred Heart [SML]. That is what our Catholic Faith demands of us that we believe. If we believe this, we are Catholic. If we do not, we are not.”[95]

3).  “When we pray before the Blessed Sacrament, we are adoring Christ in the fullness of His human nature, including His physical properties, which include His heart of flesh, now glorified but living and, we may add, pulsating out of love for us [Verified scientifically through the specimens from the Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires--SML[96]] [Hardon, John A. Advanced Catechists Course, Explanations of Questions, Vol II: The Sacraments; Kensington, MD, Inter Mirifica, 1994. P. 84. #61].”[97]

Journal Source: Kumar et al., “A tetrahedral entropy for water.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009; 106 (52): 22130 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911094106.