Chapter IX: Sacrament of the Eucharist/Holy Communion
This
portion of the tract/comic marks the beginnings of Chick’s attacks on teachings
of the Eucharist/Holy Communion. He
gives as his citation his 1978 comic Angel
of Light, but, as mentioned previously, he is really referencing Alexander
Hislop’s The Two Babylons. I mentioned previously that Hislop’s
arguments were either not historic, or they fell in line with the
logical/rhetorical fallacy known as “Hasty Generalization.” But sometimes, they were just plain wrong.
Baal
was not the sun god for the ancient Babylonians; he was a fertility god. The Babylonian sun god was Shamash. Likewise, Osiris was not the sun god for the
ancient Egyptians; he was the god for fertility and the underworld. Ra was the Egyptian sun god. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that a
priest for either Baal, Shamash, Osiris, or Rah would have a “Chi Rho” in the
background, which is shorthand for “Christ” in Greek.
In
any case, Hislop is once again guilty of “Hasty Generalization.” One can find similarities (baptisms,
communion feasts, marriages, etc…) with any religion, past or present, all over
the world, but the understanding behind these similarities differs from
religion to religion.
From here, Chick begins a multi-page
attack on the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist (or Holy Communion). While I am going to be responding to Chick’s
attacks in more detail, it would be best to provide a brief understanding of
how Catholics view the Eucharist.
First,
Catholics understand the Eucharist to be a memorial meal, because it remembers
the final gathering Jesus had with his disciples before his crucifixion (Mark
14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-28, Luke 22:14-20, and First Corinthians 11:23-26). This is commonly referred to as “The Last
Supper.”
Second,
Catholics understand that when the presiding celebrant (bishop or
presbyter/priest) recites the words of consecration from Jesus at The Last
Supper (“this is my body, this is my blood”), Jesus becomes truly present in
the Eucharist. This is a teaching known
as the “real presence,” and the Catholic Church’s official understanding of
this teaching is called “transubstantiation.”[1]
Third, Catholics understand the
Eucharist to be a sacrifice, because it re-presents, in an un-bloody form,
Jesus’s one sacrifice on the cross.
It is also understood that believers join/unite to Jesus’s one sacrifice by
offering themselves in a spiritual manner to God.
The Host, or Wafer, is shaped like the Sun
The
shape of the Host, or Wafer, is insignificant.
What is significant is that it must be made of bread.
Catholics believe that it actually becomes the body, blood, soul, and
divinity of Christ
As do other Christians who hold to
the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist/Holy Communion (Orthodox,
Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, etc…).
And it Must be Worshipped as God
If
one holds that Christ is God, and that he becomes truly present in the
Eucharist/Holy Communion, then, yes, the Eucharist/Holy Communion can be
worshipped.
In the “Offertory,” the priest offers the wafer and wine
Actually,
this takes place during the Eucharistic prayer.
The offertory simply prepares the community for the celebration of the
Eucharist.
The Lord Who Will Enter the Wafer
Technically
speaking, the Lord—in this case, Jesus—does not “enter the wafer.” When the
prayer of consecration takes, the substance of the bread and wine will change
into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, but the looks and
taste of bread and wine will remain.
The Wine is Also Consecrated, Supposedly Becoming the Actual Blood of
Jesus
It
should be noted that, from a Catholic perspective, Christ is fully present
under both species. In other words, if a
person receives just the consecrated wine (the Blood of Christ), he or she will
also receive the Body of Christ.
Likewise, if a person receives just the consecrated bread (the Body of
Christ), he or she will also receive the Blood of Christ.[2]
The priest, with his “magical
powers…”
The
presbyter/priest, or bishop, does not actually, technically speaking, do
anything; Jesus Christ does through the celebrant, as mentioned
previously.[3] Furthermore, the statement, “The priest, with
his ‘magical powers,’” is laughable to Catholics, and the same would be true
for those in the Orthodox and Anglican communities.
Catholics believe the priest is so powerful, he can
pull Christ out of Heaven, put him on the cross, and sacrifice Him again during
the Mass.
Essentially,
Chick argues that Catholics believe that, at every mass, Christ is crucified,
or dies, all over again. The problem
with this accusation is that the Church does not actually teach it,
which Chick might have known if he had read the Baltimore Catechism:
362. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the cross
and the Sacrifice of the Mass?
The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On
the cross Christ physically shed His blood and was physically slain, while in
the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because
Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfied for us,
while in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on
the cross.[4]
But in fairness
to Chick, plenty of individuals, including those who do not share is “rabid
anti-Catholicism,” often misinterpret this teaching, and a lot of it has to do
with the fact that the celebration of the mass, or Eucharist, is referred to as
a “sacrifice.” I will address the term
“sacrifice” later, but for now let me quote a portion of the Sacrosanctum
Concilium, or This Sacred Council, from the Second Vatican Council:
At the Last Supper, on the night when He was
betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and
Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout
the centuries until He should come again…[5]
The word
“perpetuate” is often misinterpreted here to mean that Jesus is constantly
dying every time the Eucharist is celebrated.
To clarify the point made by the Council Fathers at Vatican II, let me
provide an example based on some dialogue that I remembered hearing in Sunday
School as a child:
Teacher: Jesus died for our sins.
Me: How did he do that?
Teacher: He died on the cross.
Me: And when did this happen?
Teacher: In the first century, around the third
decade.
Me: Well, then he couldn’t have died for my sins.
Teacher:
Huh?
Me: He couldn’t have died for my sins, because I
was not around during Jesus’s lifetime
to commit any sins that he
could have died for.
Based
on the dialogue I provided, no, Jesus could not have died for my sins. The only sins Jesus could have died for would
have been those committed by individuals who were alive during Jesus’s
lifetime—any other sins committed after Jesus’s death on the cross would not be
affected in this scenario. But let us
return to the dialogue once more:
Teacher: It’s true that you weren’t around during
Jesus’s lifetime, but that doesn’t
matter.
Me: How so?
Teacher: It doesn’t matter, because Jesus’s death
extends space and time. No matter what
time period you live in, Jesus died for your sins.
Based
on this additional dialogue, yes, Jesus did die for my sins, because if Jesus’s
death “extends space and time,” then someone who lived, and committed sins,
centuries after Jesus, would still be affected by his death; and another word
for “extends,” in this case, is “perpetuate”—which, ironically, would be in
agreement with the passage Chick tries to cite in the Letter to the Hebrews
against this teaching (Hebrew 7:27).
In Egypt, the “IHS” stood for their gods…Isis, Horus, and Seb
Chick cites
Hislop’s The Two Babylons as a reference on this point, and this is
another example of where Hislop is completely wrong. The “IHS” are the first three letters of
Jesus’s name in Greek transliterated into our Latin/Roman alphabet. Chick’s website lists Greek as one of the
languages his comics/tracts were translated in; the same is true with Italian
and French, two common “Latin languages.”
Surely, his translators must be aware of this obvious error.[6]
The Holy Eucharist is Placed in the Center of a Sunburst Design
Called the Monstrance
Chick puts an
emphasis on the word “sunburst.” Yet,
whether the monstrance has a “sunburst design,” or lack thereof, is
immaterial. The word “monstrance” is a
Latin word which means “to show,” hence, its purpose—to “show” the Eucharist.
Catholics Must Bow Down and Worship the Little Wafer as God…or
Else!
“Or else”
what? I noticed that Chick did not
provide a citation of a document from the Catholic Church stating what would
happen if a Catholic did not engage in Eucharistic adoration, and perhaps for
good reason…there is not one. And
considering that a Catholic only has to receive the Eucharist once a
year, the chances of him or her being forced to engage in Eucharistic worship
seems highly unlikely.[7]
Furthermore, the accusation is laughable to Catholics.
Who Dreamed this Up?
The “short
answer” to this question is Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Christianity
(Mark 14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-28, and Luke 22:19-20). But if one wants to look at stronger language
of Jesus being present in the Eucharist, then one should look at what is known
as “The Bread of Life” discourse in the Gospel of John (John 6:25-69).[8] Likewise, this attitude of Jesus being truly
present in the Eucharist was held very early in Church history, such as
Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrneans, which was written during
the years of 107-110 CE/AD: “They [more
than likely, Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they
do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”[9]
If one wants to
examine the notion of how the celebration of the Eucharist was viewed as a
sacrifice, one could look at the First Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul
makes a comparison between the celebration of the Eucharist and the sacrifices
that Gentiles (non-Jews) offer to their various gods (First Corinthians
10:14-21). But if one wants some
stronger language, let us turn to the Didache or The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles,[10] which was written
sometime between the late first century to the middle of the second century
CE/AD:
On the Lord’s Day of the Lord [Sunday] gather together,
break bread and give thanks,
after confessing your
transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who
has
a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest your
sacrifice be
defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the
Lord: “In every place and time let
there be offered to Me a clean
sacrifice. For I am a Great King,” says
the Lord, “and My
name is wonderful among the
gentiles [Malachi 1:11, 14].”[11]
While Chick may
argue that Ignatius of Antioch’s letter and the Didache are not in the
Bible, that does not matter. Just
because a particular document is not considered canonical, or divinely
inspired, does not change its historical importance. In the case with Ignatius’s letter and the Didache,
it shows the attitude that early Christians had regarding the Eucharist.[12]
Doesn’t this Information Upset You?
Not really,
considering that most, if not all, of the information I have been responding
back to has been completely wrong. What does
upset me is that I am well aware that I am not the first person to respond back
to one of Chick’s comics/tracts—including this one. Likewise, I am upset that when these
errors—some of them demonstrable—were pointed out to Chick, he never bothered
to correct these mistakes in his comics/tracts.[13]
In
this portion of Chick’s attack on the Eucharist, he makes the charge that, at
the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Council Fathers declared that if anyone
holds that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, they are to be executed. As a historian of Church History, I did not
know whether to “laugh or cry,” when I read this accusation. The fathers at the Council of Trent never
declared that a person was to be executed for not believing in the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist/Holy Communion. What they did declare was that a
person—a Catholic, more specifically—was “accused,” or “separated from the
fold,” for not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist/Holy
Communion, which is what the word “anathema” refers to. Essentially, they were in a state of
“excommunication” from the Church.[14]
This Law Was Death to Bible-believing
Christians
As
stated previously, the Church never declared that one was to be executed for
not believing in the Real Presence of Christ in Communion. But, if the Church did actually issue a death
sentence for those who did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist, the only ones who would have been in trouble would have been those
who agreed with Ulrich Zwingli—whom I will discuss later.
All this History has been Covered Up
If
“all this history has been covered up” then how does Chick know about it? Where did he receive his information
from? He provides no citation, and
probably for good reason…no such information exists!
At
the same time, there is evidence of Catholics, who were executed by
Protestants for refusing to surrender their belief that Christ is present in
the Eucharist. One example of this is
“Martyrs of Gorkum.”[15]
This Totally
Violates Scripture (Hebrews 10:30)…and the Lord Jesus is Very Angry with the
Vatican
The
passage from the Letter to the Hebrews has nothing whatsoever to with the
Doctrine of the Eucharist, or even death in general. It is an attempt to show Christians how Jesus
is superior to anything possibly offered within Judaism.
Protestants Believe the Lord’s Supper
[Eucharist/Holy Communion] is Symbolic
No,
they do not! Some do. Those who agree with Zwingli do. If Chick had written this comic/tract during
Luther’s lifetime, he would have been subjected to Luther’s “legendary
temper.” To explain this further, I am
going to give the point of view of three individuals associated with
Protestantism: Martin Luther, Ulrich
Zwingli, and John Calvin.
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
In
Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church, his official break with
Catholicism, Luther mentions how for the first 1200 years of the Church’s
history, all one had to do was believe that Christ was truly present in the
sacrament (the bread and wine). Then, at
the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Church declared that
“transubstantiation” to be the official understanding of how Christ was present
in the Eucharist.[16]
From
Luther’s perspective, holding to transubstantiation was fine, but if a person
wanted to have another understanding of how Christ was present in the
Eucharist, such as “consubstantiation,”[17] that
was acceptable as well. What was
fundamental to Luther was that a Christian maintained that Christ was truly
present in the Eucharist.[18]
Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531)
Zwingli’s
position on the Eucharist is the one Jack Chick would be in agreement
with. However, Chick’s use of Paul in
First Corinthians neither proves, nor disproves, Zwingli’s argument.[19]
Essentially,
Zwingli argued how Jesus said that he is “a vine” (John 15:1, 5); yet, Jesus is
not literally a vine. Likewise, Jesus
says that he is “the light” (John 8:12); yet, he is not literally light. Also, Jesus declared himself to be a “gate”
(John 10:7); yet, he is not literally a gate.
So, the same is true with Jesus referring to himself as the “bread” and
“wine.” They are just symbols.[20]
John Calvin (1509-64)
Calvin’s
point of view is not as straight-forward as Luther’s or Zwingli’s, and that is
arguably due to the fact that Calvin was trying to find a “middle ground”
between the positions of those two.
Essentially, Calvin argues that the Eucharist is a “symbol,” but that
Christ is “truly present” in that symbol.[21] As he closes his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Calvin
makes this statement:
Meanwhile
it should satisfy us, that there is fraternity and communion among the
churches, and that all agree in so far as is necessary for meeting together,
according to
the commandment of God. We all then
confess with one mouth, that on receiving the
sacrament [Eucharist] in faith, according to the ordinance of the Lord, we are
truly partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus
Christ. How that is done some may deduce
better, and explain more clearly than others.[22]
The
general understanding regarding Calvin’s final words is that the Eucharist is
subjected to individual relativity.
Essentially, if one finds the Eucharist to be just a symbol, then it is
just a symbol; but, if one finds Christ to be truly present in the Eucharist,
then Christ is truly present.[23]
Chick,
once again, is trying to argue that Catholics hold that, at every mass, Christ
is sacrificed/killed all over again, but, as previously stated, the Church does
not teach this. The Church
teaches that the celebration of the Eucharist re-presents, in an un-bloody
form, Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross. It is not a new sacrifice, but the same
sacrifice, and Christians join with that one sacrifice by offering themselves
in a “spiritual manner to God.”[24] But perhaps some of this confusion has to do
with the word “sacrifice.”[25]
When
the word “sacrifice” is used as a metaphor, it is usually interpreted to mean
“death” or “forfeit,” but that is not what the word literally
means. The literal meaning of the word
“sacrifice” is “to make holy,” or “to draw near,” but that does not
automatically equal death. For example,
the Psalmist refers to “a sacrifice of Thanksgiving,” and nobody dies in the
process of this sacrifice (Psalm 50:14).
Likewise,
I stated previously how, during the celebration of the Eucharist, Christians
offer themselves to God in a spiritual manner.
This is also a sacrifice, as referenced in the Letter to the Hebrews
(Hebrews 13:15-16). But, once again,
nobody dies in the process of doing so.
What Does Jesus Think of the Catholic
Church? He Calls Her the Great Whore
(Revelation 17:1)
Actually,
Jesus says nothing in that passage. An angel, speaking to John of Patmos, does.
He [Jesus] Orders Everyone Not to Partake of Her Sins
If
by “sins” Chick is referring to the teaching that Jesus constantly dying over
and over again, no such sin is being committed, since the Church does not
actually teach such a thing.
Furthermore, the additional passage that Chick cites from the Book of
Revelation is a reference to the Roman Empire and its leadership at that time
(late first century CE/AD), not the Catholic Church.[26]
[1]Transubstantiation is the understanding that Jesus becomes truly
present in the Eucharist (body and blood, soul and divinity) under the look and
taste of bread and wine. Essentially,
the substance of the bread and wine has changed, but their look and taste
remain.
[2]Catechism of the Catholic
Church, section 1390.
[3]And it should be noted that it is the Holy Spirit who changes the
bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ sent by the Father, but it still
involves all three persons of the Holy Trinity.
See Catechism of the Catholic Church sections: 1104-06, 1352-53, 1375.
[4]The Baltimore Catechism: Revised
Edition (1941), section 362 in Mary Foundation,
accessed from https://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson27.html, accessed on 24 February 2024.
[5]“Sacrosanctum
Concilium,” section 47 in The Holy See, accessed from https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html, accessed on 24
February 2024.
[6]“Tract Languages” in Chick
Publications. Accessed from https://www.chick.com/products/tract-languages. Accessed on 01 March 1, 2024.
I noticed
among the tracts/comics Chick Publications has translated into Greek, Are
Roman Catholics Christians? is not among them. It makes me wonder if translators in the past
pointed out these obvious errors, but Chick “didn’t want to hear them.”
[7]Catechism of the Catholic Church,
section 1417.
[8]The Gospel of John features no last supper scene, but it does
feature a reference to the Eucharist in the “Bread of Life” discourse.
[9]Ignatius of Antioch, “Letter to the Smyrneans,” in The Faith of
the Early Fathers 1:25, section 64.
[10]How much of this work has to do with the twelve apostles is
questionable, but it is a very early Christian document.
[12]It should be noted that Ignatius of Antioch came out of what is
called the “Johannine Community,” which produced the Gospel of John and the
Three Letters of John that are part of the canonical New Testament.
[13]I feel that the same thing would be true if David Daniels, Chick’s
successor, were to read my response to this particular comic/tract. I doubt he would issue any type of
retraction.
[14]Susan K. Wood, “Anathema” in The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of
Catholicism. John F. Lahey,
“Excommunication” in The HarperCollins
Encyclopedia of Catholicism.
[15]Petrus Henricus Albers, “The Martyrs of
Gorkum” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, accessed from https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06651c.htm, accessed on 02 March 2024.
[16]This was done to settle the matter of does the Eucharist “turn to
dung” like any other article of food. As
Jesus states, in the Bread of Life Discourse, “My flesh is true food and my
blood is true drink” (John 6:55).
[17]“Consubstantiation” is the teaching that the Body and Blood of
Christ is truly present with the substance of bread and wine.
[18]Martin Luther, “Pagan Servitude in the Church [Babylonian Captivity
of the Church]” in Martin Luther:
Selections from His Writings, ed. John Dillenberger (New York: Anchor Books, 1962), 264-70.
[19]Ironically, Chick does not cite First Corinthians 11:27-29, which
could be seen as a challenge to his point of view, and Zwingli’s point of view.
[20]Huldrych [Ulrich] Zwingli, “Commentary on True and False Religion”
in The Protestant Reformation, ed.
Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1968), 112-16.
[21]John Calvin, “Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of Our Lord Jesus
Christ” in John Calvin: Selections from
his Writings, ed. John Dillenberger (Scholars Press, 1975), 513-15,
sections: 12, 14, 15.
[23]With Calvin, he does give a condemnation on the idea of
transubstantiation. His understanding of Christ being present in the Eucharist
would be more in harmony with consubstantiation. See Calvin, “Short Treatise,” in John Calvin, 515 and 528, sections: 15
and 39.
[24]Catechism of the Catholic
Church, section: 618.
[25]I have also seen some of this confusion regarding the celebration
of the Eucharist where the word “sacrifice” is used in plural form. However,
this is only meant in terms of the one sacrificed being celebrated
multiple times by the earthly priesthood, not Jesus constantly dying.
[26]In textual studies, this is what is known as “socio-criticism,”
which is examining a text within the time period it was written.
Comments
Post a Comment