Eucharist (some links)

From a treatise by Saint Gaudentius(327-410) of Brescia, bishop

The Eucharist is The Lord's passover

One man has died for all, and now in every church in the mystery of bread and wine he heals those for whom he is offered in sacrifice, giving life to those who believe and holiness to those who consecrate the offering. This is the flesh of the Lamb; this is his blood. The bread that came down from heaven declared: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. It is significant, too, that his blood should be given to us in the form of wine, for his own words in the gospel, I am the true vine, imply clearly enough that whenever wine is offered as a representation of Christ’s passion, it is offered as his blood. This means that it was of Christ that the blessed patriarch Jacob prophesied when he said: He will wash his tunic in wine and his cloak in the blood of the grape. The tunic was our flesh, which Christ was to put on like a garment and which he was to wash in his own blood.

  Creator and Lord of all things, whatever their nature, he brought forth bread from the earth and changed it into his own body. Not only had he the power to do this, but he had promised it; and, as he had changed water into wine, he also changed wine into his own blood. It is the Lord’s passover, Scripture tells us, that is, the Lord’s passing. We are no longer to look upon the bread and wine as earthly substances. They have become heavenly, because Christ has passed into them and changed them into his body and blood. What you receive is the body of him who is the heavenly bread, and the blood of him who is the sacred vine; for when he offered his disciples the consecrated bread and wine, he said: This is my body, this is my blood. We have put our trust in him. I urge you to have faith in him; truth can never deceive.

  When Christ told the crowds that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, they were horrified and began to murmur among themselves: This teaching is too hard; who can be expected to listen to it? As I have already told you, thoughts such as these must be banished. The Lord himself used heavenly fire to drive them away by going on to declare: It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

From the treatise Against Heresies by Saint Irenaeus, bishop

The Eucharist, pledge of our resurrection

If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body. There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed us. As the Apostle says: In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.

  We are his members and we are nourished by creatures, which is his gift to us, for it is he who causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall. He declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood, and he makes it the nourishment of our blood. He affirmed that the bread, which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment of our body. When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the word of God, the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by which our bodies live and grow. How then can it be said that flesh belonging to the Lord’s own body and nourished by his body and blood is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life? Saint Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians that we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones. He is not speaking of some spiritual and incorporeal kind of man, for spirits do not have flesh and bones. He is speaking of a real human body composed of flesh, sinews and bones, nourished by the chalice of Christ’s blood and receiving growth from the bread which is his body.

  The slip of a vine planted in the ground bears fruit at the proper time. The grain of wheat falls into the ground and decays only to be raised up again and multiplied by the Spirit of God who sustains all things. The Wisdom of God places these things at the service of man and when they receive God’s word they become the eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. In the same way our bodies, which have been nourished by the eucharist, will be buried in the earth and will decay, but they will rise again at the appointed time, for the Word of God will raise them up to the glory of God the Father. Then the Father will clothe our mortal nature in immortality and freely endow our corruptible nature with incorruptibility, for God’s power is shown most perfectly in weakness.

1345

As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves ...and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek:eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.¹⁷¹

171.

St. Justin, Apol. 1, 65-67:PG 6,428-429; the text before the asterisk (*) is from chap. 67.

1366

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.¹⁸⁹

189.

Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27.

1545
(all)

1367

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."¹⁹⁰

190.

Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.

long quote below found in comment 409 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/

There is an interesting quote from St Cyril of Jerusalem in his famous Catechetical Lectures:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.

Now taking this without a fuller context, it seems as if Cyril was laying out a Sola Scriptura approach to the Faith. But tell me what your thoughts are on this passage at a more advanced part of Cyril’s Lectures:

1. By the loving-kindness of God ye have heard sufficiently at our former meetings concerning Baptism, and Chrism, and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ; and now it is necessary to pass on to what is next in order, meaning to-day to set the crown on the spiritual building of your edification.

2. Ye have seen then the Deacon who gives to the Priest water to wash, and to the Presbyters who stand round God’s altar. …
3. Then the Deacon cries aloud, “Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another.”
4. After this the Priest cries aloud, “Lift up your hearts.” … Then ye answer, “We lift them up unto the Lord:”
5. Then the Priest says, “Let us give thanks unto the Lord.” …

6. After this, we make mention of heaven, and earth, and sea; of sun and moon; of stars and all the creation, rational and irrational, visible and invisible; of Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Thrones; of the Cherubim with many faces: in effect repeating that call of David’s Magnify the Lord with me. We make mention also of the Seraphim, whom Esaias in the Holy Spirit saw standing around the throne of God, and with two of their wings veiling their face, and with twain their feet, while with twain they did fly, crying Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Sabaoth. …

7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.

8. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice.

9. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth. … when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.

11. Then, after these things, we say that Prayer which the Saviour delivered to His own disciples, with a pure conscience entitling God our Father, and saying, Our Father, which art in heaven. …

20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to thy bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ. …

23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and keep yourselves free from offence. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.

Most Protestants would say that quite a bit of this Liturgy, both the structure and content, is nowhere found in the Scriptures (and even contrary to Scripture). Would you agree with that? If so, then how do you harmonize this major Lecture with Cyril’s words earlier on encouraging his readers to search and confirm these things from Scripture?

It seems to me that the only way to make sense of these two quotes is to affirm that while the early Church held Scripture in the highest regard possible (i.e. higher than Sola Scriptura), they were to be read/interpreted in light of the Christian tradition. So it doesn’t matter how widespread Scripture reading was, it was always to be done within established limits.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Is%20the%20Eucharist%20a%20True%20Sacrifice.htm

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6#

http://catholicmentoday.org/2009/01/07/the-fourth-cup-by-dr-scott-hahn.aspx audio by Scott Hahn

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I  (church father quotes)

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num8.htm (this is my Body--early Church Fathers)

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/05/does-john-663-refute-real-presence.html


below quote is from :  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/12/three-frameworks-for-interpreting-the-church-fathers/

Let no one eat or drink from your Eucharist except those who are baptized in the name of the Lord. For the Lord said about this, “do not give holy things to dogs.” (Didache 9:5)

If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. (Didache 10:6)

On the Lord’s day, once you have gathered, break the bread [of the Lord], and hold Eucharist, confess your transgressions that your sacrifice may be pure. Let not anyone who has a quarrel with his friend join you until they reconcile that your sacrifice not be defiled. (Didache 14:1,2)

These prerequisites and warnings not only reflect Paul’s admonition about unworthy reception of the sacrament (see 1 Co 11: 27), they are linked in ancient texts to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. The verses from Didache 14:1,2 quoted above is followed by a quotation from Malachi 1:11,14:

This is what was spoken by the Lord, “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice because I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the Gentiles.”

This text is quoted later by Justin Martyr in chapter 41 (sec 3) of his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew to emphasize that Christians have the real sacrifice spoken of by the prophet. This doctrine became a universal conviction of the ancient church that the Eucharist was a true sacrifice offered to God.¹³

It is of course possible to delve into each of these points in more depth but this survey of the Didache suffices to show that we have valuable information on the beliefs and practices of ancient Christians not found explicitly within the NT. And these pieces of information are seen and developed in later centuries in a rather consistent manner. Most noteworthy of all is the fact that ancient Christians apparently had a standardized liturgy very early. Perhaps these liturgies were given directly by various apostles or their companions to different churches. In any case, these liturgical indicators belie the contention that early Christian worship was free flowing, unstructured, and unpremeditated. All the available indications are that the churches had structured patterns of worship handed on to them from the very beginning of the church.

The end or goal (telos) of teaching, liturgy, sacraments, and governmental structure was unity. The unity conceived and taught was not a monolithic uniformity but a harmonious interplay of the parts in which each member found his proper place. The church, then as now, was always assaulted with disunity, disaffection, and dissolution. Schism and sedition were constantly knocking at the door. The only answer which could match the threat was God’s freely given grace in word and sacrament combined with a God-ordained structure of worship and government. This was the problem and these were the solutions offered by Ignatius, Clement, and the author of the Didache.'' end of quote

Here is another quote and source given at its end:

''Regarding the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ, please note that I didn’t use the term transubstantiation anywhere in my post. I purposely avoided the term to avoid the argument that transubstantiation didn’t exist in the early Church. The early Christians believed that when they worshiped at Mass, when the presbyter (priest) prayed over the bread and wine, Christ became present, not just in a symbolic and mystical way. Call it what you will. There was perhaps a few others in the history of Christendom before the reformation who didn’t accept this, (Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century) and they were denounced and corrected by the Church. The Church has never held that the bread and wine were symbols of the body and blood of Christ. Even Protestant theologians and Church historians acknowledge that the Eucharist was indeed real food and real drink, the real body and blood of Christ. As you can see above, Martin Luther fought vehemently against Zwingli and others who didn’t accept that Christ’s body and blood became present on the altar in Mass.

Protestant historian Philip Schaff :

“The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question.

(History of the Christian Church, volume 3, § 96. “The Sacrifice of the Eucharist”)

“In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98). ”

This belief in the real presence (the actual body, blood, soul and divinity) of Christ in the Eucharist has been a stumbling block for many since the events of John 6. Christ knew this would be and many left him (Jn 6:66) that day. But I will throw my lot with the disciples who didn’t leave the Lord that day. “To whom should we go Lord, for you have the words of eternal life.” from comment 190 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/#comment-38412

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/

{a quote from the above link} St. Justin Martyr (d. AD 165) explained that before receiving the Eucharist, a person not only needed to be baptized, but also had to assent to the Catholic teaching. He writes:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. …

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. ( First Apology, 65, 66)

from comment 46 the quote below: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/does-calvin-teach-that-the-church-ceased-to-exist-on-account-of-the-eucharist/#comment-38280

First, the Holy Church doesn’t teach that Christ is “sacrificed again and again”. Given that Jesuit educational institutions have been rather liberal and lax in the last several decades, maybe you were taught wrongly or poorly. This view of “re-sacrifice” was condemned by the Council of Trent. Christ offered Himself once on cross. This same sacrifice is made present (not repeated!) in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Getting back to your main point. The Old Testament forbids the consumption of blood because “the life is in the blood” (cf. Gen 9:4). Sit back and think about this. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). Humanity needs life.

Humans were not to receive blood in anticipation of *the* blood that gives life. Christ refers to this when he proclaimed in John 6:53 (the verse you quoted!) “In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, **you have no life in you**.”

Moreover, Christ offers the cup of his Blood as “the cup of the Blood of the New Covenant”. Thus, this is the great and fundamental shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant (of Christ’s Blood).

from comment 61

I assume that you believe that when you were justified by God that you were “washed in the blood of the Lamb.” Yet does this recent washing in the blood (I’m assuming you were justified at least in the last several decades) imply that Jesus died “again” in that moment and that His blood was offered again to the Father and applied to you at the moment of your justification?

Of course not.

The one and single sacrifice of Christ was made present in you (by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood) but that does it mean that this sacrifice was “repeated”. A fortiori the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is called a sacrifice as early as the Didache and arguably in Paul and in the anonymous Hebrews.

see section e here on why called priests--it relates to Eucharist as sacrifice: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/holy-orders-and-the-priesthood/#proofofsacrificialpriesthood

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num34.htm (Evangelical critics---a response to the Protestants))

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num30.htm (Saint Augustine)

http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2012/05/st-gaudentius-of-brescia-late-300s-on.html St Gaudentius of Brescia

feingold lecture on eucharist and baptism: http://hebrewca.ipower.com/SoundFiles/S4L08StPaulonSacraments.mp3  Also coming up in 2012 Fall is a complete series on the sacraments and 2 will be on the Eucharist: http://hebrewcatholic.org/sacramentsfromth.html

Then here is another video---a short 3 minute one



another video:


St. Justin Martyr, Letter to Antoninus Pius, Emperor, 155 AD.

below is the rest of the story to the scott h. video above (he explains at the end about Chris)---he also explains as Bryan says: But if the Eucharist were not the sacrifice of Christ, it would not be the New Testament; it would be only a representation of the New Testament


concerning Christ's last meal: from comment 26 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/lawrence-feingold-on-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-and-the-ministerial-priesthood/#comment-40200

That long quote that I gave earlier, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, explains that the Blood of Christ was truly “poured out” at the Last Supper, and his Body broken, as a propitiatory sacrifice. This is not a physical sacrifice, because Our Lord is not slain in the Supper, but the sacramental sacrifice is a true sacrifice because the Victim is truly present under the forms of bread and wine. That reality, Our Lord’s Body and Blood, was actualized at the Incarnation. His self-oblation presupposes his Body and Blood. Because these are present in the Upper Room, they could be, and were, re-presented in the Last Supper.

“Therefore, when He has spoken and says about the bread, ‘This is My Body,’ who will have the nerve to doubt any longer? And, when He affirms clearly, ‘This is My Blood,’ who will then doubt, saying that it is not His Blood? Once, by His own will, He changed water into wine at Cana in Galilee; is He not worthy of belief when He changes wine into blood? … the visible bread is not bread, even if it is such to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and the visible wine is not wine, even if taste thinks it such, but the Blood of Christ” (Mystagogic Catechesis 4:1,2,6,9)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 a.d.)

from comment  33 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/real-presence-does-it-mean-cannibalism/  in answer to a question from comment 32  :

First I would correct the notion that believers in a state of grace have only the Third Person indwelling. Jesus said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” (Jn. 14:23) All three Persons of the Blessed Trinity indwell each person who is in a state of grace.

The Eucharist is “highly regarded” and “made such a big deal of” because the Eucharist is Jesus, who is God. And God should always be “highly regarded” and recognized as “a big deal,” because He is that Deal than which no greater Deal can even be conceived. The three Persons of the Trinity do not compete for regard, nor does the presence of one divine Person rightly make us nonchalant or indifferent to the presence of another divine Person. Rather, each Person of the Trinity deepens our love for the other two Persons of the Trinity.

The Eucharist is unique as a mode of divine presence because in the Eucharist Christ is present substantially and sacramentally under the species of bread and wine, whereas the indwelling of the Trinity is not by substantial presence but by mutual indwelling in the soul. That is, mutual indwelling is through having the beloved in one’s intellect (as known), and in one’s will (as loved), as St. Thomas explains here. The omnipresence of God, by contrast, is as the mover and sustainer of all beings. (SeeSumma Theologica I Q.8.) So Christ’s Eucharistic presence is unique in comparison to His omnipresence by power, and His indwelling by grace.

from  part of comment 47 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/real-presence-does-it-mean-cannibalism/#comment-103340

It seems that the language used in the liturgy in reference to the consecrated bread and wine indicate that the “bread of life” and the “precious blood” are different (and not just different in accidents).

That’s because they are different. The bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, and the wine is transformed into the Blood of Christ. The bread is not transformed into the Blood of Christ, and the wine is not transformed into the Body. Rather the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, and with His Body by concomitance His Blood, Soul, and Divinity are also present. Likewise, the wine is transformed into the Blood of Christ, and with His Blood by concomitance His Body, Soul, and Divinity are also present.

from called to communion comment 21 found here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/lawrence-feingold-on-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-and-the-ministerial-priesthood/#comment-39778

"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Christ gave his Body and Blood to the disciples at the Last Supper (par 1338). St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the same thing in the Summa theologiae, III, 81. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) article on the “Sacrifice of the Mass” goes into more detail, concerning the nature of the Last Supper as a true sacrifice:

The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulae, clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of consecration pronounced over the bread. For the sake of clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four passages in Greek and English:

Matthew 26:28: Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:24: Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon. This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22:20: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing

that the “shedding of blood” spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;

that it was a true and real sacrifice;

that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.

The present form of the participle ekchynnomenon in conjunction with the present estin establishes the first point. For it is a grammatical rule of New Testament Greek, that, when the double present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present (see Fr. Blass, “Grammatik des N.T. Griechisch”, p. 193, Gottingen, 1896). This rule does not apply to other constructions of the present tense, as when Christ says earlier (John 14:12): I go (poreuomai) to the father”. Alleged exceptions to the rule are not such in reality, as, for instance, Matthew 6:30: “And if the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is cast into the oven (ballomenon) God doth so clothe (amphiennysin): how much more you, O ye of little faith?” For in this passage it is a question not of something in the future but of something occurring every day. When the Vulgate translates the Greek participles by the future (effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts, considering that the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice, if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical shedding of blood on the cross, would be impossible and meaningless; for the one is the essential presupposition and foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of philology, effunditur (funditur) ought to be translated into the strictly present, as is really done in many ancient codices. The accuracy of this exegesis is finally attested in a striking way by the Greek wording in St. Luke: to poterion . . . ekchynnomenon. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking place directly in the chalice, and therefore in the present. Overzealous critics, it is true, have assumed that there is here a grammatical mistake, in that St. Luke erroneously connects the “shedding” with the chalice (poterion), instead of with “blood” (to aimati) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this highly cultivated Greek, as though he were a school boy, we prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to indicate its contents.

As to the establishment of our second proposition, believing Protestants and Anglicans readily admit that the phrase: “to shed one’s blood for others unto the remission of sins” is not only genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice, but also designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation (cf. Leviticus 7:14; 14:17; 17:11; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Hebrews 9:10, etc.). They, however, refer this sacrifice of expiation not to what took place at the Last Supper, but to the Crucifixion the day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by the double consecration of bread and wine mystically separated His Blood from His Body and thus in a chalice itself poured out this Blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that he wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a sacrament merely but also as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. If the “pouring out of the chalice” is to mean nothing more than the sacramental drinking of the Blood, the result is an intolerable tautology: “Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is being drunk”. As, however, it really reads “Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, which is shed for many (you) unto remission of sins,” the double character of the rite as sacrament and sacrifice is evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the “drinking”, the sacrifice in the “shedding of blood”. “The blood of the new testament”, moreover, of which all the four passages speak, has its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the Old Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the people with the true blood of an animal and added, as Christ did, the words of institution (Exodus 24:8): “This is the blood of the covenant (Sept.: idou to aima tes diathekes) which the Lord hath made with you”. St. Paul, however, (Hebrews 9:18 sq.) after repeating this passage, solemnly demonstrates (ibid., ix, 11 sq) the institution of the New Law through the blood shed by Christ at the crucifixion; and the Savior Himself, with equal solemnity, says of the chalice: This is My Blood of the new testament”. It follows therefore that Christ had intended His true Blood in the chalice not only to be imparted as a sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins. With the last remark our third statement, viz. as to the permanency of the institution in the Church, is also established. For the duration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indissolubly bound up with the duration of the sacrament. Christ’s Last Supper thus takes on the significance of a Divine institution whereby the Mass is established in His Church. St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the Savior the words: “This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me”.

We are now in a position to appreciate in their deeper sense Christ’s words of consecration over the bread. Since only St. Luke and St. Paul have made additions to the sentence, “This is My Body”, it is only on them that we can base our demonstration.

Luke 22:19: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur; touto esti to soma mou to uper umon didomenon; This is my body which is given for you.

1 Corinthians 11:24: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; touto mou esti to soma to uper umon [klomenon]; This is my body which shall be broken for you.

Once more, we maintain that the sacrifical “giving of the body” (in organic unity of course with the “pouring of blood” in the chalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as a permanent institution in the Church. Regarding the decisive point, i.e. indication of what is actually taking place, it is again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for to soma he adds the present participle, didomenon by which he describes the “giving of the body” as something happening in the present, here and now, not as something to be done in the near future."...............

" Concerning the Melchizedekian priesthood as discussed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, you wrote:

Did you ever wonder why Hebrews omits the “bread and wine” from its discussion on Christ-Melchizedek ? Hebrews goes out of its way to connect Melchizedek with Christ, over and above the Old Law. Only bloody sacrifices are discussed and there is no hint of the Eucharist sacrifice. A sacrament is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of an invisible grace. Genesis 14 records Melchizedek observing a sacrament that includes a sacrifice of his lips. Christ instituted a better sacrament by following the same pattern.

In his discussion of the Aaronic priesthood as compared to the priesthood of Christ, the author of this Epistle focuses upon bloody sacrifices, i.e., the physical immolation of the victim(s). The author is not concerned to describe the nature of the ordained Christian priesthood established and sustained by Christ. (There is, so far as I can recall, no mention of “pastors,” “bishops,” “presbyters,” or “deacons” in the Epistle to the Hebrews.) Obviously, the ritual “bringing forth” of bread and wine is a point of commonality between Melchizedek, the Aaronic priesthood, Christ, and the New Covenant priesthood. The author of Hebrews did not deny this point by not raising or developing it. He simply focused on other aspects of Christ’s priesthood vis-a-vis the Aaronic priesthood."

from comment 25

"The distinct priestly nature of the ordained ministry is constituted by the fact that only some believers are appointed to celebrate the Eucharist. It is by being ordained to “do this” (i.e., celebrate the Eucharist) that a Christian is made to participate in a particular way in the priesthood of Christ. Thus, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, there are two distinct participations in the one priesthood of Christ, both of which are brought about by an oath-in-action; i.e., a sacrament: we are made priests in the universal priesthood by Baptism; the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood is conferred by ordination to celebrate the Eucharist. 

in the CCC--

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.¹⁸⁵ "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."¹⁸⁶

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."¹⁸⁷ In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."¹⁸⁸

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.¹⁸⁹

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."¹⁹⁰

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. 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.

In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and intercedes for all men.

In comment 36   here

an answer is given to this question:

What do you make of the various documented ‘Eucharistic miracles’ of the Catholic Church? (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm). It seems that they show that the Body and Blood is physical and bloody. How can that be if the Real Presence is a sacramental, substantial presence, and has a non-bloody nature?

In order to answer that question, it is essential to distinguish between substance and accident. The Real Presence has to do with the substance of the Host and the Precious Blood, even while the accidents of bread and wine remain. (Hence the term “transubstantiation.”) Regarding cases of Eucharistic miracles in which flesh or blood appear, and not just to the beholder, or for a short time, but to all persons, and for a long time, St. Thomas provides an answer in Summa Theologica III Q.76 a.8, where he writes the following:

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, 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 (77, 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.

Thus, in answer to your question, the Real Presence, even in such cases, is “substantial,” i.e. by way of transubstantiation. But in these cases the accidents are not “unbloody.” Nevertheless, say, for example, that in the case in question the Host has become a piece of heart muscle (such as in this case). According to what St. Thomas says in the quotation above, Christ’s glorified body in heaven is not missing a piece of His physical heart. Rather, in such a miracle, we should think that the accidents of bread (under which is the substance of Christ’s body), are miraculously changed into the accidents of flesh. So the heart muscle in such a case is truly the flesh of Christ, as is the Eucharist at every mass, because it is so by transubstantiation. But unlike the Host at every mass, here in these unique cases (as laid out in the link you provided) the accidents are not “unbloody.” Nevertheless, this heart muscle (to continue with my example) is not such by having been cut out from Christ’s physical body such that He is missing a piece of His heart, but rather is formed by way of a miracle upon a miracle, namely, by the miraculous transubstantiation of bread into the Body of Christ (which takes place at every mass), and then by the miraculous transformation of accidental forms (under which is the Body of Christ), from the shape, color, texture, etc. of bread, into the shape, color, texture, etc. of flesh.

from comment  254 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/#comment-52462

1 – In the Bread of Life discourse of John 6, Jesus explains what He means “more thoroughly” than He does anywhere. This is NOT just a mere symbolic reference as in “I am the Door” or “I am the Gate.” He goes into graphic detail about eating, using words in the Greek that mean crunching. And when those following Him say it is a hard teaching and walk away, Jesus does not run after them and tell them it’s only a symbolic teaching. No, we are not allowed to believe that. If it IS only symbolic, why doesn’t He tell them so?

2 – The Bread of Life discourse really comes to life at the account of the Lord’s Supper. Now we know what He is referring to when He says we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He holds up bread and says, “This is My Body,” and holds up the cup of wine and says, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.” But how can bread become His body and wine become His blood? Well, if God made something (the universe) out of nothing, then certainly He can make something out of something else. It’s that simple. To doubt this is to doubt the omnipotence of God.

3 – 1 Corinthians 10:16

“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?”

If someone thinks that we are stretching this a bit too far, then St. Paul the Apostle is in the same boat. Paul believes that when we eat the bread, we share in the body of Christ, and when we drink the cup, we share in His blood.

4 – 1 Corinthians 11:23-32

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.”

Paul even goes so far as to say that if we eat and drink in an unworthy manner, and by unworthy he says we do not discern the body of the Lord we are consuming, then we are SINNING against the body and blood of the Lord. This is not mere bread and wine anymore. It’s right here in Scripture and when I finally realized it, I knew I could no longer stay in any Protestant congregation that didn’t believe this.

5 – Hebrews 13:10

“We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.”

Now this is the real clincher for me. The author of Hebrews states clearly that we Christians have an “altar” and that eating takes place at this altar. The only even that I can think of where eating takes place is at the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Eucharist. And if this eating takes place at an altar, then there is something deeper going on than just eating. An altar implies a sacrifice, and a sacrifice implies a priest.

Absurd? Well, this is what God the Holy Spirit has revealed through the Sacred Scriptures. Are we really allowed to say that such a teaching is absurd? What does this say about our understanding of Who God is, if we deny His omnipotence to bring about such a change in bread and wine?

“

THE bread and the wine are not merely figures of the Body and Blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified Body of the Lord itself, for the Lord has said: “This is my body," not, this is a figure of my body; and “My blood," not, a figure of my blood."

 

~St. John of Damascus: “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," 4, 13.

”

—	St. John of Damascus —died in the 700’s

from a comment 271  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/

Without the Last Supper, the Crucifixion would have been an execution or a murder, but not a sacrifice.

Interesting find in the museum item about 1500 years old from Egypt:http: //www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-29028009

A 1,500-year-old papyrus charm thought to be "the first ever found to refer to the Last Supper and use magic in the Christian context" has been discovered in the vaults of a Manchester library.

The fragment was found at the University of Manchester's John Rylands Library by researcher Dr Roberta Mazza.

Dr Mazza said it was an "incredibly rare example of the Bible becoming meaningful to ordinary people".

She said it would have been put in a locket to protect wearers from danger.

The document, written in Greek, has been held by the library since 1901, but was largely ignored until Dr Mazza came across it.

"It's one of the first recorded documents to use magic in the Christian context and the first charm ever found to refer to the Eucharist - the Last Supper - as the manna of the Old Testament."

She said it was "doubly fascinating because the amulet maker clearly knew the Bible, but made lots of mistakes".

"Some words are misspelled and others are in the wrong order - this suggests that he was writing by heart rather than copying it."


from comment 212 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/

Michael Patton has written “5 Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.” I have pasted each below, followed by my reply.

1. It takes Christ too literally
There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al).

This objection presupposes that Tradition and the Magisterium have no role in interpreting Scripture, and determining what is not “too literal” or “not literal enough,” And thus this objection is built on a prior point of disagreement; it presupposes the truth of the Protestant rejection of Tradition and the Magisterium, and in this way begs the question

2. It does not take Christ literally enough
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.

Unless Michael believes that (a) all the OT Saints are in hell, or (b) all the OT Saints worked their way to heaven without grace, then he too believes that they too received the grace of Christ’s atonement temporally prior to His crucifixion. Yes, we believe that during the Last Supper Christ offered to His disciples the Body and Blood He would shed the next day, just as we believe that He offers to us in the Eucharist the Body and Blood He shed two thousand years ago. Hence the following St. Augustine quotation quoted in Tim’s article above:

Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body.’ For he carried that body in his hands. – St. AugustineExplanations of the Psalms 33:1:10

Yes, this is a miracle, but this is God, so miracles are possible.

Next Michael writes:

3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)
In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?

The problem here is the same problem in the first objection. It presupposes that there is no authoritative Tradition to guide our interpretation of Scripture, and thus that we’re left in the murky vagaries of hermeneutical wandering and groping.

4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist
Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.
(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)

Michael’s dismissal of John 6 presupposes the same problem I described in my reply to his first objection. And the notion that if the Eucharist is not explicitly mentioned in a Gospel, then transubstantiation is false, is a non sequitur.

5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon
… In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.

I’ve addressed that objection in comment #185 above. [here is the comment 185 below]

185

On the same and previous page of his book Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism, Sproul writes:

Protestants also struggle with the question of how the human nature of Christ can be in more than one place at the same time. The Roman Catholic view essentially attributes the quality of omnipresence to the physical body of Jesus. If the Mass is being celebrated simultaneously in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, then, according to Roman Catholic teaching, His physical body and blood, which are part of His human nature, not part of His divine nature, are present in more than one place at the same time. Rome says this happens because there is a communication of power from the divine nature, which can be omnipresent, to the human nature. But once the human nature assumes the attributes of the divine nature, Rome has a problem with her own Christology. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the relationship of the two natures of Christ, saying that He is vera homo vera dues, that is, “truly man and truly God,” and that the two natures are in perfect unity but without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, so that each nature retains its own attributes. So, Rome needs to explain how attributing omnipresence to the body of Christ does not involve a deification of the flesh of Jesus, giving it a divine attribute. How does that not confuse the two natures of Christ?

Sproul is claiming/suggesting that the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a kind of Eutychianism, in that it conflates the two natures of Christ, by claiming that Christ’s human nature is omnipresent, and thus possesses an attribute of His divine nature.

The Catholic response involves four points. First, the Catholic doctrine distinguishes between different modes of presence, such that something can be present either in the mode of accidents, or in the mode of substance, as explained in comments #4 and #24 of the “Augustine on Adam’s Body and Christ’s Body” thread. So the accidents of Christ’s physical body are present in the mode of accidents only in heaven; in the Eucharist the accidents of His body are present only in the mode of substance.

Second, the Catholic doctrine does not claim or entail that Christ’s physical body is omnipresent, but that in the Eucharist His body is present in the mode of substance in many places at the same time. If Christ’s physical body were omnipresent, there would be nothing especially sacred about the Eucharist, because Christ would no more present there than anywhere else. So the notion that Christ’s human nature is omnipresent would be incompatible with Eucharistic adoration.

Third, those limitations that are essential to human nature should not be confused with those limitations that are proper accidents of human nature. Failing to make this distinction can lead to mistaking the removal of limitations non-essential to human nature for Eutychianism. Being present in the mode of substance in only one place is not essential to human nature, and for this reason Christ’s human nature remains intact when He is present simultaneously in many places in the mode of substance.

Fourth, Christ’s presence in the mode of substance in the Eucharist is a miracle, not a natural power or property of His human nature. Similarly, His passing through closed doors (Jn 20:19,26) and His face shining like the sun (Mt. 17), and His Ascension into heaven (seecomment #19 in the Terrence Malick thread), were not natural powers of his human nature; they were miracles. But miracles removing limitations non-essential to human nature do not destroy the integrity of Christ’s human nature. And in this way the miracle by which Christ’s body and blood are present in the mode of substance simultaneously in many different places in the Eucharist does not destroy the integrity of His human nature, and thus does not conflate His human nature with His divine nature. For this reason, the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence does not entail Eutychianism.

see also http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/top/church21/pdf/C21ResourceSUMMER110817web.pdf  explains why the Eucharist is at the center of the worship