Sect. 263New Testament References to the Eucharistic SacrificeNew Testament References to the Eucharistic Sacrifice

The scantiness of references to the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the New Testament and in the early writings was formerly accounted for by the “Discipline of the Secret”—that is, the custom of concealing from the heathens and the catechumens the more sacred and mysterious rites and doctrines of the Christian religion, either by not mentioning them at all, or by merely alluding to them in enigmatical language. That this custom prevailed to some extent during the period of the catechumenate (from the end of the second to the end of the fifth century) is undoubted. But it does not account for the silence of the earlier writings; and indeed, even in the later period, the restriction had to do with preaching rather than writing (Batiffol, Études d’Histoire, etc., La Discipline de l’Arcane). A better explanation is that the doctrine of the Mass is an instance of the development of doctrine as explained supra, vol. i. p. 105. According to this, we cannot expect to find clear, explicit teaching in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages. Nevertheless we can produce distinct traces and germs of the doctrine as held in the later ages.

I. “They were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread (τοῦ ἄρτου), and in prayers” (Acts 2:42, 46). The breaking of “the” Bread, coming between the preaching and the praying, cannot refer to a common meal. It is the religious rite instituted at the Last Supper, alluded to in terms perfectly intelligible to the initiated, but telling nothing to the profane.

“As they were ministering to the Lord (λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ)” (13:2). Here, for the first time, we meet with the term λειτουργέω, which henceforth becomes for all time the Greek technical expression for the sacred functions of the Mass. Erasmus translates it by sacrificantibus. The suggestion that the ministering consisted in preaching, as it does in some sects without sacrifice, mistakes the signification of λειτουργέω, and leaves unexplained how they preached “to God.”

II. In 1 Cor. 10 we read: Ver. 16. “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? 17. For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. 18. Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?… 20. But the things which the heathen sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. 21. You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils.”

Verse 16 sets before us the Eucharistic blessing of the bread and wine, and their subsequent transmutation into the Body and Blood of the Lord, as taking place in the Churches of Corinth. The command, “Do this in memory of Me,” is carried into practice. The Christian sacrifice gives to the converts from Judaism and heathenism a more intimate communion with God than the one sought for in their previous sacrifices. Having an altar of their own, they ought not to return to the “tables” of false gods. The sacred tables of the idols are the altars upon which is offered the meat afterwards to be partaken of by the worshippers. St. Paul, therefore, is witness that the Church at Corinth offered a real sacrifice, and that this sacrifice was the one instituted by the Lord on the eve of His Passion (cf. Cornelius à Lapide, in hunc loc.; Council of Trent, sess. xxii. ch. 1).

III. “We have an altar (θυσιαστήριον), whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.” Is this altar the Cross, or the altar of the daily sacrifice? Many Fathers, and the majority of commentators, especially since the Reformation, hold the latter opinion. On the other hand, St. Thomas, Nicholas of Lyra, Titelmann, Estius, Oswald, and nearly all the Protestants (except Bähr, Böhme, and others) understand the altar to be the Cross, and the eating thereof to be through faith. The Council and the Catechism of Trent abstained from quoting the text, probably in deference to St. Thomas. Cornelius à Lapide, whose opinion is of great weight, argues in favour of the Christian altar as follows: “ ‘An altar,’ on which we offer the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ … of which the Jewish Levites do not partake, but the Christian priests and faithful, when they take the Holy Eucharist in order ‘that the heart be established with grace,’ as the Apostle says (ver. 9). Thus Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Sedulius, Haymo. That the Apostle does not speak of the altar of the Cross, as the heretics contend, is plain from the words ‘we have.’ For we have not the altar of the Cross, but had it 1600 years ago. Again, from the word ‘to eat;’ for we do not eat of the altar of the cross, but of the altar of the Eucharist. Lastly, from the contrast established by the Apostle between the altar of the tabernacle of old, from which the Jewish priests and worshippers ate the victims as holy meat, and this new altar of the Church, from which the faithful eat not the carnal viands of oxen and sheep, but a Divine and heavenly food, the body of Christ. The Apostle recommends this Eucharistic altar to the Hebrews in order to strengthen their souls during persecution. For nothing gives more strength and comfort to the soul than Holy Communion,” etc. Further, Cornelius remarks that “altar” stands for the food and sacrifice on it, and then continues: “Hence it is plain that the Eucharist and the Mass are a sacrifice. The Eucharist has its altar; where there is an altar there must be a priest, and likewise a sacrifice, for these three are correlative. Hence also the Greek text has for altar θυσιαστήριον, i.e. sacrificatorium, the sacrificial altar” (Comm. in Heb., xiii. 10).