The sacrament of Eucharist

1. Names
The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides various names for the Eucharist (cf. CCC 1328-
1332).
1.1 Eucharist
1
Origin and Etymology of eucharist:
→ from Greek, eucharist = gratitude,
→ from eucharistos = grateful,
→ from eu- + charizesthai = to show favour,
→ from charis = favour, grace, gratitude;
→ akin to Greek chairein = to rejoice.
→ late Latin eucharistia = middle English eukarist, from Anglo-French eukariste.
The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning “thanksgiving”, is not used in the New
Testament as a name for the rite; however, the related verb is found in New Testament accounts
of the Last Supper, including the earliest such account:
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night
when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks (εὐχαριστήσας), he broke
it, and said, «This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me»”.
(1 Corinthians 11:23-24)
Jesus gave thanks for the bread: Luke 22,19; 1 Corinthians 11:24; for the cup: Matthew 26:27;
Mark 14:23. There’s also another Greek word, eulogein (from eulogeo), which is also used for
the bread and the wine in the “institution narratives” (for the bread Matthew 26:26; Mark 14.22;
and the cup 1 Corinthians 10.16). Eulogeo is more or less interchangeable with eucharisto, but
by the second Century, Christians were using the term eucharist to describe the Holy
Communion. The term “eucharist” (thanksgiving) is that by which the rite is referred by the
Didache, Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. Today, “the Eucharist” is the name still used by
Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Lutherans.

1.2 Breaking of Bread

Another term used in relation to this sacrament, and derived from the New Testament is the
“breaking of bread”. Jesus did it originally as host of the table during the meal (Mt 14,19; 15, 36;
Mk 8, 6.19), and then used that gesture at the Last Supper (Mt 26. 26; 1 Cor 11. 24). In this
gesture two disciples recognized risen Jesus in Emmaus (Lk 24,13-35). The phrase (του κλασαι
αρτον) appears five times in the New Testament (Luke 24,35; Acts 2,42; 2,46; 20,7 and 20:11)
in contexts which, according to some, refer to celebration of the Eucharist.
Acts 2,42: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life,
to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.”
Acts 20,7: “On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them
because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight.”
Mt 15,36: “Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, gave thanks, broke the loaves, and
gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds.”

1.3 Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper, in Greek Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον (Kyriakon deipnon), was in use in the early 50s
of the 1st century, as witnessed by the First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:20-21):
 “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you
goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.”
The Lord’s Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his
disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in
the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 19:9).

1.4 Holy Communion

The term “Communion” is derived from Latin communio (“sharing in common”), which
translates Greek κοινωνία (koinōnía) in 1 Corinthians 10,16:
2 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
“Holy Communion” (or simply “Communion”) are used by some groups originating in the
Protestant Reformation to mean the entire Eucharistic rite. Others, such as the Catholic Church,
do not use this term for the rite, but instead mean by it the act of partaking of the consecrated
elements: they speak of receiving Holy Communion even outside of the rite, and of participating
in the rite without receiving Holy Communion. The name “Holy Communion” closely connects
with the determination of the “Holy things”:
“Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us
sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (gr.
ta hagia; Latin: sancta) - the first meaning of the phrase "communion of saints" in the
Apostles’ Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality,
viaticum...” (CCC1331).
Also, the concept of Eucharistic assembly (synaxis) are rooted in the New Testament (1
Corinthians 10, 16-17; 11, 17-34). The Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful,
the visible expression of the Church.

1.5 Holy Sacrifice

Another name for the Eucharist, referring to the Scriptures, is “the most Holy Sacrifice, because
it makes present the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.” Also uses the name of the victim of the mass,
sacrifice of praise (Heb 13. 15; cf. Ps 116, 13. 17), victim of the spiritual (1 P 2. 5), a victim of
pure (Ml 1. 11) and the holidays, because it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old
Testament (CCC1330). For example, Heb 13,15:
“Through him (then) let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of
lips that confess his name.”

1.6 Blessed Sacrament

The “Blessed Sacrament” and the “Blessed Sacrament of the Altar” are common terms used in
VII century, for the consecrated elements, especially when reserved in a tabernacle.

1.7 Mass, the Holy Mass

Mass is used in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Churches and by some
Anglicans. At least in the Catholic Church, the Mass is a longer rite which always consists of two
main parts: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, in that order. The Liturgy
of the Word consists mainly of readings from scripture (the Bible) and a homily preached by a
priest or deacon and is essentially distinct and separate from the sacrament of the Eucharist, which
comprises the entirety of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, so the Eucharist itself is only about one
half of the Mass. The term mass derives from post-classical Latin missa "dismissal", found in the
concluding phrase of the liturgy, "Ite, missa est" ("Go, the dismissal is made"). The term missa
 has come to imply a 'mission', because at the end of the Mass the congregation are sent out to
serve Christ.

1.8 Divine Liturgy and Divine Service

The term Divine Liturgy is used in Byzantine Rite traditions, whether in the Eastern Orthodox
Church or among the Eastern Catholic Churches. These also speak of “the Divine Mysteries”,
especially in reference to the consecrated elements, which they also call “the Holy Gifts”.
The term Divine Service (German: Gottesdienst) is used in the Lutheran Churches, in addition to
the terms “Eucharist”, “Mass” and “Holy Communion”. The term reflects the Lutheran belief
3 that the liturgy was instituted by God.
Other names of the sacrament does not appear explicitly in the New Testament, because it arose
at a later time: Memorial of the passion and resurrection of Christ, the table of the Lord, the
sacrament of The body and blood of Christ (St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistula ad Magniesios
7. 2), medicine of immortality (St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistula ad Ephesios 20. 2), the bread
of angels, bread from heaven, the sacred mysteries, Holy Feast and Holy Mass. This name appears
in the 4th century and comes from the Latin word missio for sending of the faithful in order to
fulfil the will of God in everyday life. Other phrases also are used to describe Eucharist, including
“Table of the Lord” (Mensa Domini), the “Lord’s Body” (Corpus Domini), and the “Holy of
Holies” (Sanctissimum).
 Biblical basis

Prefiguration’s of the Eucharist in the Old Testament:

1. The offering of Melchizedek (bread & wine) was a symbol of this Holy Sacrament,
“Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most
High” (Gen 14:18). This is the first verse in Holy Scripture where the word “priest” was
used and it is interesting to notice the connection between the priesthood of Melchizedek
and the offering of bread and wine. Therefore, it was said about our Lord, “You are a priest
4
forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6)
2. The Day of Atonement – Yom Kippur.
3. The manna that the Israelites/Jews ate in the wilderness of Sinai for forty years was a
symbol of the Sacrament of Eucharist. Our Lord said, “this is the bread which came down
from heaven – not as your fathers ate the manna and are dead. He who eats this bread will
live forever” (Jn 6:58) – “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone
eats of this bread, he will live forever and the bread that I shall give is My flesh” (Jn 6:51)
4. The Passover. The Passover lamb that the Israelites/Jews offered on the night of their
exodus from Egypt, and which they used to offer every year thereafter was a symbol of
this Sacrament “for indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor 5:7).

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the most obvious Old Testament prefiguring of the sign aspect
of the Eucharist was the action of Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18. Concerning the first of the Old
Testament pre-figurations that Aquinas mentioned, Melchizedek’s action in bringing out bread
and wine for Abraham has been seen, from the time of Clement of Alexandria, as a foreshadowing
of the bread and wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and so “the Church sees in the
gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who 'brought out bread and wine', a prefiguring of her
own offering” (in the Eucharist).
The second prefiguration mentioned by Aquinas is that of the Old Testament sacrifices,
especially that on the Day of Atonement. Other theologians too see these as foreshadowing the
Eucharist. They point out that Jesus “himself said, as he committed to the Apostles the Divine
Eucharist during the Last Supper, 'This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins'.”
The third prefiguration – the manna. The manna that fed the Israelites in the wilderness is also
seen as a symbol of the Eucharist. In the Old Testament, the manna is first described in Exodus
16. In the desert, the twelve tribes of Israel cry out for food, and God responds by saying, “I will
now rain down bread from heaven for you” (Ex 16:4). Significantly, this is a twofold gift: each
morning, God gives Israel “bread” from heaven (the manna); each evening, God gives them
“flesh” from heaven (the quail). According to Exodus, the manna appears in the morning, “when
the dew evaporated” (Ex 16:14), and tastes “like wafers made with honey” (Ex 16:31). Evidently,
the reason the manna takes like honey is because the manna is a foretaste of the promised land,
the land “flowing with milk and honey” (Ex 3:8). It is thus a pledge of the Israelites’ ultimate
destination. Although they are currently in the desert, God pledges to bring them home and gives
them the manna as a sign of the promise. Moreover, the Israelites recognize that the manna is no
ordinary bread. They refer to it as the “bread from heaven” (Ps 78:21-25), and they treat it as
holy, placing it in a golden urn and putting it in the Ark of the Covenant inside the Tabernacle
(Ex 16:33; Heb 9:2-4). According to the Old Testament, God gives to the Israelites the manna
from heaven for forty years, until they finally arrive in the promised land of Canaan. At that time,
the manna ceases (see Jos 5).
 In later Jewish tradition, however, a belief arose that when the Messiah finally came, he would
bring back the miracle of the manna. For example, the ancient Jewish writing known as 2 Baruch
(AD first century) says that when “the Messiah” comes, “it will happen at that time that the
treasury of manna will come down again from on high” and that the righteous will eat this manna
every day. From this ancient Jewish perspective, those blessed enough to live in “the days of the
Messiah” would once again eat the manna of the Messiah, who is sometimes depicted as a new
Moses. In the Gospels, Jesus speaks of this Jewish hope for the new manna of the Messiah and
connects it to the Eucharist on at least two occasions.
First, in the Lord’s Prayer, he teaches his disciples to pray “give us today our daily bread” (Mt
5 6:11). In the original Greek, the word translated “daily” (“epiousios”) here actually means “super-
substantial” or “supernatural,” as Jerome translated it in the Latin Vulgate Bible. On the one hand,
this petition in the Lord’s Prayer can be applied to daily needs: the bread needed for existence
each day. In its original historical context, however, any Jewish Christian would have recognized
a prayer for bread that is both daily and supernatural as a prayer for the new manna, the new
manna of the Messiah. As the Catechism teaches, when “taken literally,” this petition of the
Lord’s Prayer “refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ” (CCC, no. 2837).
The second example of Jesus mentioning the manna is from the famous Bread of Life discourse,
which he preaches in the Jewish synagogue at Capernaum (see John 6:25-71). In this discourse,
Jesus’ Jewish audience challenges him to perform a sign like that of Moses, who gave the fathers
“manna in the desert” (Jn 6:30-33). Jesus responds with a discourse on the Eucharist, in which
he identifies the Eucharist as the true manna from heaven: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the
desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and
not die... And the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (Jn 6:49-51; emphasis
added).
In light of such teachings, again, it is no wonder that the first Jewish Christians believed in the
real presence of Jesus in the Christian Eucharist. For when they read the Scriptures, they saw it
in terms of “Old Testament pre-figurations” of what God had accomplished “in the fullness of
time in the person of his incarnate Son” (CCC, no. 128). From a Jewish Christian perspective, if
the old manna was miraculous bread from heaven, the bread of angels, then the new manna of
the Eucharist could not be just a symbol. If it were, that would make the old manna greater than
the new. To the contrary, Jesus describes the Eucharist as the new and greater manna from
heaven: “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink… This is the bread that came
down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live
forever” (John 6:55, 58). With these words, Jesus is revealing his real presence in the Eucharist,
but in a very Jewish way, by showing it to be the long-awaited new manna of the Messiah, and,
therefore, miraculous bread from heaven.
In the Catholic Mass, we find a subtle but beautiful allusion to the Eucharist as the new manna
in the epiclesis of Eucharistic Prayer II, when the priest says, “Make holy therefore these gifts,
we pray, / by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, / So that they may become
for us, / The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the words “like the dewfall,” there is
a biblical allusion to the manna of the Exodus, which comes down from heaven each day with
the morning “dew” (Ex 16:13-14). Given the Church’s custom of offering the Mass daily, and
not just weekly, this is an important point. Just as the old manna is a daily gift from God, so too
the Church encourages the faithful to receive the new manna “even daily” (CCC, no. 1389).
In conclusion, the book of Exodus goes on to say of the manna, “On seeing it, the Israelites asked
one another, ‘What is this?’” (Ex 16:15). From a spiritual perspective, this is a revealing sentence.
In Hebrew, the word “manna” comes from the phrase meaning, “What is it?” (“man hu’”). From
that day to this, the question of the Israelites echoes down through the ages: What is it? What is
this bread? In the light of Christ crucified and risen, the Catholic faith teaches that it is the true
 bread from heaven – the Body and Blood of Christ – which the Church gives to her children each
day in the Mass, as she journeys toward the heavenly promised land of the pilgrim people of God.
The fourth prefiguration – the Passover. The ritual of Passover night described in Exodus
contains two main physical elements: a sacrificial lamb “male and without blemish” and
unleavened bread (Exodus 12:1-10). In addition to this ritual for Passover night itself, Exodus
prescribed a “perpetual institution” associated with the Passover that is celebrated by feasts of
unleavened bread (Exodus 12:14-20). The New Testament book of 1 Corinthians represents the
Passover in terms of Christ: “... For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let
us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the
6 unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).” Christ is the new lamb, and the
Eucharist is the new bread of the Passover. Among the many proscription of the Old Testament
Law that affirm the covenant, one stands out, being called “most sacred among the various
oblations to the Lord”: a sacrifice of bread anointed with oil. “Regularly on each Sabbath day
this bread shall be set out afresh before the Lord, offered on the part of the Israelites by an
everlasting agreement (Leviticus 24:5-9).” Since the time of Origen, some theologians have seen
this “showbread” as a prefiguring of the Eucharist described in Luke 22:19. Under the Old
Covenant God commanded the Israelites to offer sacrifices to atone for their sins. One of the sin
offerings was a lamb (Leviticus 5:1-6). The Old Covenant prefigured the New Covenant. The
sacrificial lamb of Leviticus is a type or picture of Christ. Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb of the New
Covenant: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The Old
Covenant lamb would be sacrificed and then a part of that sacrifice would be eaten in order to
receive its benefits (Leviticus 6:24-26). Likewise, Jesus, the New Covenant Lamb, would be
sacrificed and His body would be eaten in order to receive its benefits: “Unless you eat the flesh
of the Son of man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you” (John 6:53).
The Catholic Church sees as the main basis for this belief the words of Jesus himself at his Last
Supper: The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20) and Saint
Paul’s 1 Corinthians 11, 23-26 recount that in that context Jesus said of what to all appearances
were bread and wine: “This is my body … this is my blood.” Although the Gospel of John does
not reference the Last Supper explicitly, some argue that it contains theological allusions to the
early Christian celebration of the Eucharist, especially in the chapter 6, The Discourse on the
Bread of Life.

In his First Epistle to the Corinthians 10:16 (c. 54-55), St. Paul states:
“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?”
In the next chapter, Paul gives the earliest recorded description of Jesus’ Last Supper:
«For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the
night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said,
“This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the
cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as
you drink it, in remembrance of me.” » (1 Cor 11, 23-25)
Those interested might note that the Greek word for remembrance is ἀνάμνησιν or “anamnesis”,
which itself has a much richer theological history than the English word for “remember.”
The early letters and documents seem to affirm a belief in what would later be called the Real
Presence of Jesus in the Communion bread and wine.
The New Testament tells of Jesus’ celebration of the Jewish passover meal with his disciples
before he died (though according to John’s Gospel this meal would have been anticipated by
Jesus – 19:14). At this meal the Jewish people recounted God’s blessings toward them over each
of the dishes. Jesus would turn one of the blessings over the bread and over the wine into symbols
 of the Father’s love in his own life, death, and resurrection, and tell his disciples to do this in
memory of him. As a thanksgiving meal, the Passover meal can be likened to the todah or
thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev 7:12-15). As a collective todah of Israel under the Mosaic covenant,
it was the highest instance of todah sacrifice in the Hebrew Scripture. Likewise, the very term
“Eucharist” reflects the centrality of thanksgiving. Christ’s words of institution emphasize the
essential todah elements of thanksgiving and remembrance, whose object in this case is his “body
which is given for you” (Lk 22:19). As suggested by Jesus’ use of Psalm 22 (Mk 15:34), a classic
todah psalm, Christ’s Passion, death, and resurrection exemplify the characteristic todah
movement from lament to praise.
7 Just as Passover recalled and made present the Exodus from bondage in Egypt, the New Passover
recalls and makes present the New Exodus from bondage to sin. The New Exodus, in which the
twelve tribes of Israel would be redeemed along with the nations, was a major theme of the Old
Testament prophets. In Isaiah 40-55 and the New Testament (1 Peter 1:18-19), the New Exodus
is closely associated with redemption from sin. As given in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew,
the words Jesus spoke over the cup begin, “this is my blood of the covenant” (Mk 14:24). This
phrase echoes the establishment of the Mosaic covenant in Ex 24:8, referring to the blood that is
used to seal a covenant poured out to initiate the covenant (cf. Ex 24:6-8). Thus, Jesus declares
at the Last Supper that his own blood, poured out in his Passion and made really present in the
Eucharist, re-establishes the bond of kinship between God and man. The Last Supper and Passion
established the covenant, and the Eucharist is now an ongoing re-presentation of that covenantal
establishment. Jesus describes his blood as “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt
26:28). These words allude to the prophetic theme of the “many” among the exiled tribes of Israel
to be redeemed in the New Exodus (Is 52:12) from and with the Gentiles (cf. Zech 10:8-11). The
likeness between the Jewish people as God´s suffering servant and the unexpected suffering
Messiah is evident in these passages which speak of a paschal lamb (Is 53:7) whose life is “poured
out” for the “sin of many” (Is 53:12).
 Origin of the Eucharist

Church teaching places the origin of the Eucharist in the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples,
at which he is believed to have taken bread and given it to his disciples, telling them to eat of it,
because it was his body, and to have taken a cup and given it to his disciples, telling them to drink
of it because it was the cup of the covenant in his blood.
The Eucharistic tradition of Christ’s Last Supper has come down to us in the New Testament in
four different forms. Two of the traditional formulas, Paul and Luke, were developments of the
8
Eucharistic tradition of Antioch. The other two, Mark and Matthew are developments of a
Palestinian tradition.
Paul and the Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Mark 14:22-25 Matthew 26:26-29 Luke 22:14-20

For I received from the
Lord what I also handed
on to you, that the Lord
Jesus, on the night he was
handed over, took bread,
and, after he had given
thanks, broke it and said,
"This is my body that is
for you.
Do this in remembrance of
me." In the same way also
the cup, after supper,
saying, "This cup is the
new covenant in my blood.
Do this, as often as you
drink it, in remembrance
of me." For as often as you
eat this bread and drink the
cup, you proclaim the
death of the Lord until he
comes.
While they were eating, he
took bread, said the
blessing, broke it, and
gave it to them, and said,
"Take it; this is my body."
Then he took a cup, gave
thanks, and gave it to
them, and they all drank
from it. He said to them,
"This is my blood of the
covenant, which will be
shed for many. Amen, I
say to you, I shall not
drink again the fruit of the
vine until the day when I
drink it new in the
kingdom of God."
While they were eating,
Jesus took bread, said the
blessing, broke it, and
giving it to his disciples
said, "Take and eat; this is
my body." Then he took a
cup, gave thanks, and
gave it to them, saying,
"Drink from it, all of you,
for this is my blood of the
covenant, which will be
shed on behalf of many for
the forgiveness of sins. I
tell you, from now on I
shall not drink this fruit of
the vine until the day when
I drink it with you new in
the kingdom of my
Father."
When the hour came, he
took his place at table with
the apostles. He said to
them, "I have eagerly
desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer,
for, I tell you, I shall not
eat it (again) until there is
fulfilment in the kingdom
of God." Then he took a
cup, gave thanks, and said,
"Take this and share it
among yourselves; for I
tell you (that) from this
time on I shall not drink of
the fruit of the vine until
the kingdom of God
comes." Then he took the
bread, said the blessing,
broke it, and gave it to
them, saying, "This is my
body, which will be given
for you; do this in memory
of me." And likewise, the
cup after they had eaten,
saying, "This cup is the
new covenant in my blood,
which will be shed for you.

Paul’s Account
Paul discusses the Eucharist in two sections of First Corinthians: 1Cor 10:14-22, and 1Cor 11:17-
34; the latter section deals directly with the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
The oldest form is that quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 11. It presupposes that the Lord’s Supper was
being celebrated as a full meal in Corinth, and it consisted of two parts, the formula of the Supper
itself, and that of the cup, which Paul brings together in one statement. The circumstances
surrounding the church in Corinth were such that most of its members were of Gentile
background and many had turned away from idol worship but still had to deal with the
 ambiguities of living in pagan urban environment. What did the Eucharist demand of them in
their context? Could they eat meat offered to idols?
Paul turned to the events in the Old Testament that paralleled Baptism and the Supper as historical
precedents to help answer the question. The Israelites had been baptized into Moses and in the
cloud and in the sea, and they ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, but
none of this kept God from striking down those who turned to idolatry and indulged in
immorality.
Another problem in Corinth was the issue of distinction of persons – Jews and Greeks, men and
women, and those different social classes. This created problems when they assembled for the
9 Eucharist, and some were drunk whereas others did not have enough to eat and drink. Paul
reminds them that even though not all distinctions are abolished in the eschatological age that
had broken in through Christ, all people of all ethnicities, of both sexes, and all social classes,
were all one in Christ.
Most importantly, the Lord’s Supper was the gathering of His people into one, the body of Christ.
Therefore, they were to give their lives to one another just as Jesus did, and proclaim the death
of the Lord until his coming. They were to remember Christ’s passion and resurrection and thus
also to witness his presence, gathering them into His unity. Failure to do this was the reason Paul
told them that their supper was no longer the Lord’s Supper. Appealing for unity, Paul exhorted
everyone to respect the body of Christ of which they were members.
Paul’s account is unique in that he is the first of the New Testament writers to discuss the
Eucharist liturgical practice as he received it during his time in Antioch around the early 40’s
AD. It is a fascinating look into the early Eucharist tradition of Antioch and was likely the one
Paul established throughout the empire during his missionary activities. The actual words of
institution found in 1Cor 11:23-26 are nearly identical in Luke’s account (Luke 22:19-20). For
this reason, many consider Paul/Luke to represent a particular tradition in early liturgical
development.
One of the key similarities found in Paul/Luke is the use of atonement language with the bread
(Mark and Matthew use this language specifically with the cup only). In Paul/Luke the bread is
presented as being given “for you,” a phrase wholly lacking from Mark’s and Matthew’s accounts
of the presentation of the bread. The Mark/Matthew tradition reserves this language for the cup
and use the phrase, “which is poured out for many.” This different phrasing – “for many,” rather
than “for you” – is evidence that the Mark/Matthew account is more primitive than the Paul/Luke
account.
Two important differences between Paul and Luke consist of an omission and an addition. Both
texts contain the words, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” however the phrase, “which
is poured out for you,” is missing from Paul’s version (Luke 22:20 and 1Cor 11:25). Instead, Paul
includes the phrase, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” Thus, Paul includes
two “remembrance” phrases whereas Luke lists only one. In addition, Paul closes the section
saying, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until
he comes” (v.26). Paul adds this interpretation of the preceding admonition in order to emphasize
what it means to “remember” the Lord through the Eucharist.

Mark’s Account
No longer after Paul’s death Mark wrote “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (Mk. 1:1),
and Baptism and the Eucharist played very important roles in his story. Well before Mark wrote
his Gospel, the story of Jesus nourishing a vast crowd with very little bread was told as a
Eucharistic story, appearing six times in the New Testament. Mark was the first Christian writer
to include the story of Eucharist in the greater story of Jesus, writing in a time of crisis after
Nero’s persecution of Christians and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. To many, it
 seemed that the world was coming to an end; Mark shows them that what seemed to be the end
proved to be the beginning. For him, the Christians were reliving Jesus’ passion and resurrection,
they were taking up their crosses and following him, and their suffering was the “beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christ” – of which the Eucharist was a vital part, celebrating and proclaiming
the call of Christ to follow him.
Eucharistic themes are found throughout Mark’s gospel.
In setting out the universal mission of the Church, Mark uses the Eucharistic imagery of the
feedings of the five thousand (6:34-44) and the four thousand (8:1-9). Both sections include
parallel language concerning the crowd, Jesus’ pity, the people’s hunger, the asking of “how
10 many loaves,” the taking, giving thanks, and giving of the loaves to the disciples and from them
to the people, the satiated crowd, the remaining baskets, and the great number of people fed.
Mark includes two feeding stories, one in 6:32-44 and the other in 8:1-10, which introduce the
language and meaning of the institution later revealed at the Last Supper in chapter 14. In the
second feeding story, the actual words in the text say that Jesus “took,” “gave thanks,” “broke,”
and “gave” the bread, which is recalled in Mark’s telling of the Supper account. This second
feeding story appears only in Mark and Matthew’s account and contains an important word which
is not found in the first feeding account (which is present in all four gospel accounts). In the first
feeding account Jesus “blessed” (eulogesen) the loaves and fish, whereas in the second account
Jesus “gave thanks” (eucharistesas) for them. This special usage of “gave thanks,” or
“eucharistesas,” is an important addition for Mark’s purposes in presenting the origins of the
Eucharist tradition.
These two stories, the first in the Galilean side of the Sea of Galilee where the crowd was mostly
Jewish, and the second in the region of Decapolis, where the crowd was mostly Gentile,
emphasize the universal mission Church and Christ’s self-giving in the Eucharist for all peoples.
The stories also reflect two stages in the development of the Eucharist. In the feeding of the five
thousand, Jesus took the five loaves and also the fish, paralleling the earlier Jewish setting of the
Eucharist as part of a full meal, whereas in the feeding of the four thousand, the loaves are not
mentioned in the liturgical formula, reflecting the later stage in which Christians of Gentile origin
celebrated the Eucharist no longer as a full meal.
Even after the breaking of bread with the five thousand and the four thousand, the disciples did
not understand. The second major section of the Gospel serves to teach Mark’s readers to see the
Eucharist as a sharing in the Messiah’s passion, death, and resurrection. As the first part
emphasized the breaking of bread and eating, and the universal breadth of the Church, the second
part emphasizes the symbol and theme of the cup and drinking it, and the depth of commitment
needed to fulfil the Church’s universal mission. Jesus begins to announce the passion-resurrection
of the Son of Man; “can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the Baptism with which
I am baptized?” Mark emphasizes Baptism as Baptism into death, and also into Christ’s
resurrection.
The Last Supper, drawing from the ancient formula of Palestinian origin, is given in the context
of a Passover meal at which Jesus and the betrayer are together; the passion is a tragedy, as in a
Greek drama, and Jesus is the knowing and accepting, but passive and helpless victim of a plot
to destroy him; but eventually Jesus triumphs through his passion, and the formula for the Lord’s
Supper was introduced to transform the Last Supper from a betrayal meal into a self-sacrificing
meal. He gave his life, and his followers, like him, while praying that the cup might be taken
away from them, are also to submit to the will of the Father, take up their crosses, and follow
Christ to his passion-resurrection.
 Matthew’s Account
Matthew’s Gospel was written some fifteen years after Mark’s Gospel, and it retold the story to
a community rich in Jewish background and tradition, but now cut off from the synagogue and
newly committed to the Gentile mission. As noted above, there is a clear indebtedness in the Last
Supper narrative found between Matthew and Mark. Though Matthew and Mark’s accounts are
nearly identical in both words and themes, there are nuances in Matthew’s account which reveal
particular elements of concern.
A constant theme for Matthew is that of Christ’s mercy and forgiveness. This theme runs deep in
Matthew’s feeding accounts. For Matthew, forgiveness of sins was a primary purpose of the
11 Eucharist. Drawing from Mark’s formula “This is my blood of the covenant which will be shed
for many” Matthew adds the words “for the forgiveness of sins (Mat. 26:28). Accordingly,
Christ’s death was “on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” In the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew
inserts the comment, “if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive
you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions” (6:14-
15).
Like Mark, Matthew included the theme of the Eucharist at various points in his Gospel. Many
of the Eucharistic stories are very similar in both Gospels (the feeding of the multitudes, the
exchange with the sons of Zebedee concerning the cup he was about to drink, the Last Supper,
the reference to the cup in the Garden of Gethsemane), but Matthew also makes several changes,
some small and others more significant.
For example, immediately preceding the feeding of the four thousand Matthew tells of the “lame,
the maimed, the blind, the dumb, and many others” being laid at Jesus’ feet, “and he healed
them.” The feeding stories are used to demonstrate Christ’s compassionate healing ministry. As
noted by Jerome Kodell, “In Matthew’s theology, the Eucharistic feeding is also not only
nourishing but in a special way healing. At the Last Supper this will centre on the ‘inner healing’
of forgiveness (26:28)”. Matthew even expands the number of people fed in both feeding stories
to include women and children to the 4 and 5 thousand men (14:44; 15:38).
But Matthew’s stress on Christ’s compassion for all is apparent in the Last Supper account when
compared with Mark. Two significant additions are made in reference to the cup. Following
Mark, Matthew has Jesus giving thanks and then giving the cup to his disciples, but adds: “Drink
of it, all of you.” This addition is followed by the shared verse, “This is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many,” with another Matthias addition, “for the forgiveness of sins”
(26:27-28). These additions serve as a challenge to Matthew’s audience to view the Eucharist as
an event of forgiveness that all are invited too, hence there is no room for claiming that Jesus was
discriminatory in those he called as disciples (particularly if one considers that this invitation was
extended to Judas as well).
One of Matthew’s central concerns underlying his changes is the relationship between Jews and
Gentiles in his community. The majority in the Matthean community were Christians of Jewish
background, who had remained close to the synagogue traditions for many years. By the 70s and
80s, however, they were attracting a number of Gentiles.
With the destruction of Jerusalem, the community more than ever had to choose between the
synagogue and being Christian. Families were divided, and friends alienated. The community
had to fully embrace the Gentile mission. Accordingly, for Matthew, the breaking of bread was
a healing as well as a nourishing event. Healing and forgiving were two aspects of the same
reality. In his account of the Last Supper, Matthew emphasizes that the disciples – all of them –
were to drink from the cup because this was Jesus’ “blood of the covenant on behalf of many for
the forgiveness of sins;” this was especially important for his community, where sin and the
forgiveness of sins were a major issue. Jesus’ sacrifice was an act of mercy on behalf of many,
and Matthew quotes from the words of Hosea, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”
 Luke’s Account
Luke also wrote some fifteen years after Mark, and his audience was composed mostly of
Christians of Gentile origin. We’ve discussed a bit about Luke’s account already, how he tracks
with Paul and how he differs with Mark/Matthew; however, there are some additional interesting
points in Luke’s account worthy of further examination.
Luke emphasizes that while the Last Supper was a Jewish meal with Jesus of Nazareth, the
Eucharist is a formal Christian meal with the Lord Jesus. The Last Supper was a pre-passion meal
whereas the Eucharist, the passion and the resurrection are in the past but are also made present.
Without the resurrection, there would be no Eucharist. The Last Supper was unique and
12 unrepeatable, whereas the Lord’s Supper is a repeatable, liturgical event after the passion-
resurrection. The Last Supper is fulfilled in the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Supper gives
meaning to Jesus’ Last Supper.
Luke has a much more abundant supply of meal stories than Mark and Matthew (at least one per
chapter), his Supper has two cups, he practically omits the doctrine of expiatory suffering and
death, and follows the Mark/Matthew account on most every other point but chooses to follow
the same tradition as Paul on the actual institution account.
The meals of Jesus serve as a major theme for Luke in stressing the view that Jesus’ ministry was
a proclamation of life to all people – even tax collectors and sinners; something wholly
inadmissible to the Judaic ethos of his day. Paul S. Minear comments that in Luke’s gospel, “The
table becomes a place where human need meets divine grace.”
The Last Supper is a culmination of all the preceding meals and is understood in their light, which
helps explain why Luke’s Supper narrative is nearly twice as long as the other Gospel accounts.
Luke’s Supper account emphasizes the anticipation of Christ’s suffering; the Supper is an
intimate prelude to the time in which he will share this same meal again with his disciples in his
kingdom. As noted by Kodell, “For Luke, this means both in the life of the Church (7:28) and in
the heavenly banquet (13:28-29)”.
Whereas Mark included two stories of the breaking of bread, to Jewish and Gentile crowds, Luke
only includes the former, for the mission to the Jews is told in his Gospel, and the mission to the
Gentiles is told in Acts. In his Gospel, Luke tells the story of the origins of the Eucharist in a
series of ten means with Jesus; each meal is related to a basic aspect of Christian life and ministry.
They are, (1) the great feast at the home of Levi, emphasizing repentance; (2) a dinner at the
home of Simon the Pharisee, emphasizing reconciliation; (3) the breaking of bread in Bethsaida,
which was the mission to the five thousand; (4) the hospitality at the home of Martha, teaching
true discipleship; (5) a noon meal at the home of a Pharisee, showing the need of inner
purification; (6) a Sabbath dinner at the home of a leading Pharisee, showing the call to the poor
and the lame; (7) hospitality at the home of Zacchaeus, emphasizing salvation; (8) the Passover
meal, the Last Supper; (9) the breaking of the bread on the road to Emmaus, and finally, (10) a
community meal in Jerusalem.
Luke’s communities, as those of Matthew, were in transition, as the centre of Christianity was
shifting not only from Jerusalem to Antioch but also from Antioch to Rome, where there was
some measure of persecution. There were also internal difficulties, especially in relations between
members of different social status. Luke addressed these complex situations in two volumes,
Luke-Acts. In the Gospel, he told the story of the origin of the Eucharist in the life and ministry
of Jesus, and in Acts, the origin of the Eucharist in the life and ministry of the apostolic Church.
The story of Jesus and the disciples on the road to Emmaus provided an important link between
the two: Jesus remained a stranger to them until ‘he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and
gave it to them;” for those who accept the gospel of the passion-resurrection, the living one can
be recognized in the breaking of the bread, and as he meets with them later in Jerusalem, the
community becomes the springboard for the Christian mission.
 In Acts, as the ideal Church gathered “they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’
teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (2:42). The breaking of the
bread was done with the apostles with whom Jesus the risen Lord and “eaten salt” over forty days
and who were closely united with him. All were invited to share at the table of the one who is
Lord of all – and Luke makes that clear as the Gospel goes out to the Gentiles.
From a Christological point of view, the key to the universal mission of the Church and the nature
of its Eucharistic assembly is the Lordship of Jesus. Meals are prominent in the work of the
deacons, in the conversion of Cornelius and his household, in Paul’s missions (e.g., the meal in
the home of the jailer) and in Paul’s journey to Rome (the meal at Troas, and in the storm-tossed
13 ship). Christians needed to join the Eucharistic meal if they wished to be saved, and, like Paul,
they would then be able to pursue their mission to the ends of the earth.

John’s Account
John does not present a Eucharistic institution narrative at the Last Supper. Interestingly, neither
does he presents a command to baptize and offers no baptismal ritual. These facts
notwithstanding, John’s gospel is perhaps the richest of the “sacramental” books in the New
Testament; rich in Eucharistic and baptismal themes. This is due in large part to John’s style of
relating all doctrine to the incarnation. Thus, he approaches the Eucharist not as a rite focusing
on the remembrance of Christ’s death, but rather in terms of food and drink for eternal life. The
Eucharist is, for John, connected to the entirety of Christ’s life and not only as a specific
institution (though he does not deny the institution). John uses the most radical language possible
in presenting the Eucharist as the very life of Christ as seen in the 6 th chapter where Jesus
commands his true disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. John seems much less concerned
with presenting the Eucharist as a community event. According to some scholars, this is likely
due to late authorship of his gospel (probably in the 80’s or 90’s) when the institution of the
Supper would have been well established in the Church communities and in little need of textual
rehearsal. In John’s Gospel Jesus was the Word made flesh, the “bread of life,” the “living bread
that came down from heaven” to give his “flesh for the life of the world.” In Paul and the Synoptic
Gospels, the Eucharist is related primarily to Christ passion and resurrection; in John, it is related
primarily to Jesus’ incarnation. In John’s Gospel the Eucharist can be summed up as the Word
of God made flesh and made sacramental nourishment for all who believe. In this Gospel there
are three basic passages with reference to the Eucharist: the multiplication of the loaves, the Last
Supper, and the epilogue, when the disciples have breakfast with Jesus on the seashore. The Last
Supper appears in a form different than that of the Synoptic Gospels: “Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves;”
John 6 is the highest point in the Eucharistic theology of the New Testament. The story of the
seashore relates the Eucharist to the mission of the apostolic Church and to Simon Peter’s special
role in the life of the Church.
The Word was made flesh and Jesus gave his flesh for the life of the world; we must eat his flesh
to have eternal life. But to understand and accept Jesus’ message about the Word made flesh and
his Eucharistic flesh, the flesh itself was of no avail. For this they had to be open to the Spirit.
Since the words Jesus spoke were Spirit and life, the disciples needed the Spirit which gives life
to receive them. His Eucharistic message is the very “words of eternal life.”
 Passover, Last Supper and Eucharist

Christianity is the religion of which roots are deep in the Judaism. In fact, the latter contains the
context, the symbols, the religious practice, etc. in which Christianity has understood itself and
went further. There is continuation and development. We cannot understand the New Testament
apart from the Old Testament. We cannot also search for an understanding of the social-religious
context of the New Testament by leaving out of consideration that social-religious-cultural
context of the Old Testament, which is the common ground for Judaism and Christianity. Jesus
14
Christ through his incarnation became man, a Jew person. He lived the Judaism, he knew the
religious practice of Israel and was familiar with the festivals of Israel and its sacred texts. He
celebrated the Passover every year and he knew its deep meaning. Having this knowledge and
religious sensibility concerning the special way in which Israel worshiped Yahweh, Jesus Christ
lived his Last Supper with his disciples, in a way that we are invited by him from there on, to "do
this in memory of me". What does it mean this? Why did he institute Eucharist in the context of
the Passover? What are the relation between Passover and Eucharist? What are the common
elements and development? How is the invitation to com-memorate to be understood?

Israel’s Passover
Pesach, or 'Passover', which was kept by Jesus (Luke 2:41-43; Mark 14:12-26; John 12:12),
commemorated in early Spring Israel's deliverance from Egypt in which God “passed over” them
and preserved them from His judgement on Egypt (Exodus 12:13).

“And you shall eat of it [the roasted lamb] this way, with your loins girded, your sandals
on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in a hurry. It is the LORD's
Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night and will smite all the first-
born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. And I will execute judgments against all
the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. 13 And the blood shall be a sign to you upon the
houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you. And the plague
shall not be upon you for a destruction when I smite in the land of Egypt. 14 And this day
shall be a memorial to you. And you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your
generations. You shall keep it as a feast by a law forever.”
(Exodus 12:11-14)

This night was to be different from all other nights. God Himself would 'pass over' (çñt, pâçach)
and redeem every household from judgement over which was daubed the blood of the lamb. This
was not an atonement sacrifice. The Israelites had not sinned. This was pure deliverance from
circumstance. The yoke of Egypt and slavery was about to be thrown off and the demonic gods
of Egypt judged.

Passover preparation
Date Purpose First References

- 10th Nisan Mar/Apr purchase of Passover lamb – Exodus 12.3-6

- 14th Nisan Mar/Apr Passover Feast – Exodus 12.6f.
- 15th-21st Nisan Mar/Apr Feast of Unleavened Bread – Exodus 12.18 f; 13.3f.
- A Sunday, Nisan Mar/Apr First fruits – Leviticus 23.9-14
 The synoptic gospels tell of the first day of unleavened bread and the disciples' preparation of a
full Passover meal. This included (according to Exodus 12) the purchase of the lamb (sheep or
goat) on Nisan 10 for each household (if an Egyptian daubed blood on his house too, he could
have been saved, it was without national distinction). Significant in itself this speaks of corporate
familial salvation not our over concentration on the individual, compare the account of the
Philippian jailer's conversion, or that of Lydia, in Acts when their whole families were baptised.
On Nisan 14/15 after having been set aside for 4 days the lamb is killed and the flesh is eaten
with the unleavened bread.
“And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and
15 with bitter herbs they shall eat it.” (Exodus 12.8)
The original Passover feast was to be kept “to the Lord… throughout your generations… by an
everlasting ordinance…forever” (Exodus 12.14,24), now whether this “everlasting”
requirement is met with in the Passover cum Lord's Supper or only in the continuance of Passover
proper is debatable.

Passover and gentiles/foreigners

The ongoing celebration of Passover proper was peculiar to Israel for no foreigner was allowed
to eat it (Exodus 12.43,45) although a circumcised servant or foreigner could. Thus, Passover
was only to be kept by those in covenant relationship, symbolised by circumcision. In the New
Testament, though circumcision is unnecessary for Gentiles who wish to be included in the
covenant (cf. Acts 15), a circumcised heart fulfils the true requirement of covenant relationship -
but this was true even of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 10.16; 30.6; Jeremiah 4.4; 9.26) as
well as the New Testament (Romans 2.29). Hence Paul can write to all the Corinthians (5.7-8),
Jews and Gentiles, to keep the feast (lit. “go on keeping the feast”) in sincerity and truth not with
the leaven of immorality and sin. This may imply that the whole Christian life is a Passover feast
and that leaven or sin should always be removed or that some were neglecting the feast, seeing it
as an element of Judaism not Messianism (Christianity).

The cups of wine and other features of Passover practice

The Jews associated four cups with Exodus 6:6-7:
• Cup 1 “I will bring you out” [deliverance]
• Cup 2 “I will rid you of their bondage” [freedom]
• Cup 3 “I will redeem you” [redemption]
• Cup 4 “I will take you for my people and I will be your God” [consummation]
Even “the poorest in Israel … must not give them less than four cups of wine to drink" (Mishnah,
Pesachim 10.1). Why wine? Because it “makes glad the heart of man” (Psalm 104.15; Tosefta,
Pesachim 10.4) and as such is suitable to commemorate freedom.
The third cup of redemption came to be associated with the coming of Elijah and eschatological
expectation of the Messiah. Others put aside a 4th cup for Elijah.
The famous feature in the celebration of modern Passovers is the removal of leaven (châmêts)
from the house. Jesus used leaven to refer to either false teaching or the hypocrisy of not keeping
true teaching (Matthew 16.6-12; Mark 6.14-28; 8.15; Luke 12.1). The unleavened bread signified
not only purity but being in a state of readiness or haste to leave. The idea of leaven being sin is
not necessarily intended.
The Passover seder service includes the dipping of the karpas (vegetable) dipped in salt water
and the bitter herbs (maror) dipped in a paste of fruit, nuts, wine and spices (charoset). Since
some of these dishes are not specifically mentioned in the gospels they may not have come into
the seder until after Jesus’ time. Nevertheless, the bitter herbs are specifically Biblical though
and are mentioned in Exodus 12.8: “and with bitter herbs they shall eat it”.
 The roasting of the lamb was according to specific instructions. The manner of roasting it,
according to Jewish writings, was this, a spit made of the wood of pomegranate is brought and
thrust into its mouth right through it. It is specifically a wooden spit, not iron, nor on an iron
grate. Thus, it was not turned upon a spit but suspended on a hook and roasted by fire underneath,
and so Biblical commentators have drawn attention to the fact that it was like Christ suspended,
hanging upon the cross. The early church writer, Justin Martyr, says that the lamb was roasted in
the form of a cross; one spit, he says, went through from the lower parts to the head, and again
another across the shoulders, to which the hands (or rather the legs) of the lamb were fastened
and hung; and so was in every way a type of Christ on the cross. The lamb was dropped from the
16 seder when the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. The use of a roasted lamb or shank-bone of
lamb came back in but cooked in a different way to distinguish it from the Passover lamb itself.

The Hallel (praise, Psalms 113-118) is sung on the first service of the three main Jewish feasts
and the half Hallel is sung on the other days of Passover, because although there was rejoicing
for Israel's salvation the Egyptians had to be drowned to provide it and as they are also God's
creatures a measure of restraint and remorse is introduced. These psalms/hymns are amongst the
most ancient parts of the seder service for the Mishnah records discussions between rabbis Hillel
and Shammai on their performance and these rabbinic schools of thought were contemporary
with Jesus and the apostles. After the Hallel the Nishmat, “the soul of [every living thing]”,
doxology is recited. This practice also known as Birkat Ha-Shir 'Song of Blessing' is known since
Mishnaic times. It has been added to since but a curious medieval legend ascribes this Jewish
practice to the Apostle Peter!

Traditionally, Jews remain, after a Passover meal, or any other for that matter, for many hours
talking about God. This is not only traditional practice but the Biblical injunction of Exodus
12.26-27, although the Passover's retelling and education have become a midrashic expansion
and haggadah in their own right. The explanation of the pesach, matzah and maror, was
introduced at the end of the 1st century by Rabban Gamliel.

Eating Passover is considered to be not a memorial only but a reliving. Hebrew allows for this
since it had no word for history and its verbs do not properly distinguish between past and present.
“History is what happened to someone else. Memory is what happened to me”. Memory is zêkher
in Hebrew and relates to the concepts of preserving a family line through male descendants,
memorials, remembrance and the having of a name. Hebrew also uses toledhoth (generations,
descendants).

The whole meal-celebration is carried out whilst reclining together at table fellowship.
Reclining is a mark of a freeman at a great feast. Indeed, when the Jewish child asks the traditional
questions at Passover, one of them is “why we recline and not sit on this night?”. If, as it seems,
the last supper was a Passover meal then it is very unlikely to have looked anything like medieval
paintings since they would not have been seated around a table. Another surprise to Christians is
that wives and children may well have been there too, not just male disciples - since it is
inconceivable that the wives and children were at home celebrating their own Passovers. Passover
is a feast that celebrates redemption of whole households and a nation, not individuals. This
would of course have depended upon how many of Jesus' disciples' families had come up to
Jerusalem for the festival.

The bread and wine were separate elements of the meal-celebration. Grace would often precede
and/or follow the meal, the bread would be taken as part of the meal, which would then continue
to completion. The symbolism in the bread is not so much in the broken body of Jesus but in the
 promise of his continuing presence and the disciples' future unity, "we are one body, just as we
partake of one bread". Its unleavened nature is often associated with sin and its rooting out, but
more historically unleavened bread is that which is baked without time to rise and indicated the
preparedness to leave Egypt and thus is symbolical of haste and readiness (Exodus 12.11).

Passover symbolism in the Last Supper

Most Christians think of the Last Supper as more of a symbolic communion eucharist than a full
festal meal. Given this we often miss out on the full meaning of the Passover and the additional
meaning Jesus gave to it. The gospel accounts of the last supper begin with the search for a venue
17 and the lamb. However, the familiar terms paschal lamb and Passover lamb may mean different
things. Paschô is Greek for 'to suffer' whereas pesach means 'to pass over', presumably pascha
is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic or Hebrew for 'Passover'. Whether this was a wordplay
or a linguistic mistake the association of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12) together with the
suffering lamb (Isaiah 53) has stuck. Lambs for atonement for sin were also a part of Jewish
practice. The three lambs together signify: freedom through suffering as an atonement for sin.
Paul cites Jesus as “our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5.7), the word 'lamb' is not in the Greek, for
indeed the sacrifice could be a lamb or a kid.

Judaism associates 4 or 5 cups of wine, not just one, with Passover. In Luke’s account of this
supper the wine is taken at least twice, at the beginning and end of the meal. It is most likely that
the last supper 'cup' of wine is to be associated with the third Passover cup, that of redemption
(Exodus 6.6), associated with the coming of Elijah and eschatological expectation of the Messiah.
“After supper” (1 Corinthians 11.25) the cup of red wine mixed with water would be taken and
shared together from the same cup. It, like the sharing from one loaf, was symbolic of
'togetherness', freedom and fellowship in a covenant. The wine and water were later taken as
symbolic of the blood and water that flowed from Jesus' side.

The fourth cup, of consummation, Jesus declined to drink (Matthew 26.29; Mark 14.25) until
his return and consummation of the kingdom. Thus, redemption history had moved on from the
exodus and into the realms of this new covenant, though it did not negate the Passover celebration
for the Jews themselves, Jewish Christians now had additional reasons to celebrate on this
auspicious occasion. Revelation 21 speaks of God finally taking us to be His people in the fullest
possible sense of consummation and echoing Exodus 6.7: “And I will take you to Me for a people,
and I will be to you a God.”

The dipping of bitter herbs or other foods may be mentioned in the gospel accounts of the last
supper, or it may be only the dipping of bread. 'Dipping in the bowl' is referred to in Matthew
26.23 and in Mark 14.20 this is specifically 'dipping the bread'.

Jesus’ last supper concluded with the singing of hymns (Matthew 26.30; Mark 14.26), possibly
the second half of the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) traditionally associated with Passover.

Like the Passover injunction to educate at the feast through the retelling of history the last supper
accounts show that Jesus' self-disclosed and preferred title is teacher or 'master' (cf. Matthew
23.8,10; Mark 10.17; John 3.2; 13.13,14; didaskolos is used of Jesus more than 40 times and
rabbi about 15 times). According to John’s gospel chapters 13-17 Jesus teaches many things in
the context of a final meal. In the early church this carried through into the fellowship meetings
(e.g., Acts 2.42; 20.7) where breaking of bread and teaching were part of the corporate meal-
meeting event.
 The constant state of readiness of the Passover (Exodus 12.11) is repeated in the fact that the last
supper precedes Jesus’ imminent arrest and his being taken away from them and the Eucharist
proclaims the Lord's death until He comes again (1 Corinthians 11.26). Jesus’ second coming is
described as being like a thief in the night and the time of the Exodus deliverance was at night
(Deuteronomy 16.1).

It is interesting that Hebrews 11.28 regards Moses’ keeping of the Passover as an act of faith, not
ritual. It was direct trust in God’s means of salvation from Egypt however illogical it may have
seemed at the time.
18
Thus, the last supper was a full fellowship meal, looking back on the exodus and immediately
forward to the crucifixion and ultimately towards the parousia (second coming) and messianic
banquet/kingdom consummation (cf. Isaiah 25.6-9). As such the early church continued to
observe it, eventually splitting the Agape (love feast) from the more symbolic last
supper/eucharist, perhaps because of the kind of excess mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11.17-22.
The synagogues also had 2 meal occasions, the full assembly meal and the household Sabbath
meals where each family would arrange their own company, early Christians might have thus
been able to arrange exclusively Christian Sabbath meals. In the end the Agape was forgotten and
the eucharist became more formal, central and even 'magical' in the later doctrine of
transubstantiation. The Passover symbolism is mostly lost on gentile believers. Jesus was the
ultimate Passover [lamb] (1 Corinthians 5.7) and as such died with all his bones intact (cf. Exodus
12.46; Numbers 9.12; Psalm 34.20). Jewish Passover is considered to be the 'eating of history'
and the treasuring of freedom through education and enactment and is a joyful occasion, the
church all too readily emphasizes the morbid death of Christ not his joyous resurrection or return.
Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11.26 describes the purpose of the meal as proclaiming “the Lord’s death
till he comes”.

The Sacrificial lamb and the Sacrifice of Jesus

As the destroyer “passed over” every home of the Israelite on which he saw the blood of the
lamb, so God will “pass over”, (not execute judgment) the one who has put his faith in the Person
and work of Jesus Christ on the cross on his behalf. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who
hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment,
but has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24).

Passover Meal Eucharist

Bread and wine (Ex 12:15, Nm 9:11–12)
Jesus is the Paschal Lamb, the Lamb of God
Unblemished Lamb (Ex 12:4–5)
None of the lamb’s bones should be broken
(Nm 9:12)
Berekah (“blessing”)
Jesus shared bread and wine with his disciples
(Mt Lk 22:19–20)
(Jn 19:36, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Pt 1:19)
The soldiers did not break Jesus’ bones on the
Cross (Jn 19:33, 36)
Jesus took the bread and said a blessing
(Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19–20)
 Celebrates the Hebrews passing from slavery Celebrates the passing from slavery to sin to
in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land (Ex freedom in the Resurrection, from death to new
12) life (1 Cor 5:7–8)
Moses poured blood on the people at the
Jesus poured out his blood at the establishment
establishment of the Covenant (Ex 24:8, Zec
of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31, Lk 22:20)
9:11)
The Memorial
a) In the Passover
19
The term zakar, 'to remember,' which is used in Exodus 12:14; 13:9 referred not just to remember
something, but to call in mind something and re-live it, to enter not only into the thought of the
past, but also into the actuality of what happened. In this case the Passover which they celebrate
is a re-actualization of this event at the moment of its celebration. It is a present event and it is
happened to themselves. It is not just a past event, but an event to apply to their life, to consider
for themselves, to find its meaning in their present situation. By this cultic ‘commemoration’,
past salvation became once again an actual and present reality. Through the power of God, each
generation was involved in the Exodus. Therefore, the Passover is not a matter of nostalgia,
melancholy, memory of the past, but it is intervention of the Yahweh now, in the present, with
us and for us. It is an alive memory, an alive event. This understanding of the memorial of what
Yahweh has done for them is the core of the Jewish celebrating the festivals, and in this case, the
Passover. Without grasping this sense of memory, we cannot understand their attitude in living
the festivals, the Passover. The celebration of the festivals with an alive memory is part of their
understanding the history. For them, comparing with the other ancient nations, the history was
made by the events, which will be then remembered and re-actualized because they were viewed
at the origin of their relation with Yahweh. It is not an understanding of the event, i.e. of Passover,
in a cyclical way, which came again, repeated again, but re-actualized, re-lived now and for us
(and not just calling in mind the past).

b) In the Eucharist
The background of the Passover serves to understand the Last Supper, because Jesus has
instituted the Eucharist in its context, in that period of celebration. There are still divergences
among theologians if the Last Supper was a Passover or not. According to the Synoptics it was a
Passover, but not the same for St. John's Gospel. According to R. Brown the Last Supper was not
a Passover, but it had its characteristic. A positive or negative response does not alter the meaning
of what Jesus Christ has done, but anyway, whatever it is the answer at this question, we cannot
leave out of consideration the context in which was lived the Last Supper, the gestures, the words,
because they are essential for interpreting the Eucharist, for viewing the Eucharist as a living
memorial. The fundamental thing in connection with Eucharist is the context in which Last
Supper was done. The context was determined by the coming of the Passover, the meal that Jesus
and his disciples have had together and by the command to com-memorate it from there on.
During the Last Supper, after blessing and giving the bread – his body and the cup of wine – his
blood, Jesus has told to his disciples “do this in memory of me”. The phrase is proper to the Luke-
Paul version of the Institution Narrative. The disciples knew all this vocabulary, its meaning. The
word is anamnesis which refers not just to a call-in mind of a past event, but an alive call in mind,
namely it is a re-actualization of the event through its memorial and re-living as if it would
happened now! The com-memoration from now on will be this Eucharist which marked the new-
Passover, understood with the same attitude of com-memoration as for the Jewish Passover: a re-
actualization of Eucharist. Present and past linked together reciprocally. As the present was
involved in the past, so does the past become in the present. A living event, a living memorial.
 Early Christian sources

The first Christians followed the Lord’s instruction to “do this in memory of me” and they did so
on Sunday, the Lord’s Day (see Acts 20: 7; Rev 1: 10), the day He rose from the dead. It is likely,
however, that the first Jewish Christians also kept the Sabbath. The Passover ceremonial, which
the Lord used at the Last Supper, was celebrated only on that feast, and would not have been the
ceremony that the Jewish Christians used each week. Instead, the Sabbath meal, or chaburah
(friendship meal), would have been used. These ritual meals included a blessing and distribution
20
of bread at the beginning, followed by the meal proper, and ending with a solemn blessing over
the Cup of Blessing. That this structure was used in the early Church seems attested to by the late
first century document, The Didache.
Indeed, there is reference to this type of meal in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthian Christians when
he complains about the selfishness and drunkenness in the Eucharistic celebration of the Church
of Corinth (1 Cor 11: 20-23). This may be one of the reasons the meal proper was dropped from
the Eucharistic celebration; although perhaps significant were the great numbers of gentile
converts to the faith. Fr. Joseph Andreas Jungmann, the great Jesuit liturgist, states that ancestors
in the faith were clear that the essential elements were the prayers over the bread and wine which
changed them into the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus, the dropping of the meal proper in the
middle of the rite was of little consequence. As Christians moved into the Gentile world, (through
the missionary journeys of St. Paul), where there was no Sabbath observance and the Lord’s Day
was just another working day for pagans, the Eucharist was celebrated early in the morning.
The Early Fathers recognized the clear meaning of Scripture regarding the “real presence” of
Christ in the Eucharist. While some found it hard to accept (John 6:60-66) Jesus was adamant in
proclaiming that his flesh and blood were real food and drink. He did not call out to those who
abandoned him over this to explain that he was only speaking symbolically. And that is because
he wasn’t. The early Christians were even persecuted for their belief as they were accused of
being cannibals. While the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ it retains the
appearance of bread and wine.
The oldest description of the Eucharistic celebration is in the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr.
In this work, the author wants to refute the calumnies spread abroad on the subject of Christian
meetings and to explain, in a language accessible to all, the Eucharistic celebrations and baptisms
that formed apart of these assemblies.
We, however, after thus washing the one who has been convinced and signified...
assent, lead [this one] to those who are called [brothers and sisters], where they are
assembled. Then, they earnestly offer common prayers for themselves and the one who
has been illuminated and all others everywhere… On finishing the prayers, we greet
each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to
the president of the [brothers and sisters] and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to
the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers
thanksgiving at some length that we have been deemed worthy to receive these things from
[the Father]. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, the whole
congregation present assents, saying, "Amen." ... These whom we call deacons give to each
of those present a portion of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they take it to
the absent.
And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or
the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long
as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites
[us] to the imitation of these noble things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers.
 And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and
water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his
ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of
the consecrated [elements] ... takes place and [the consecrated elements] are sent to the
absent by the deacons. Those who pros per, and who so wish, contribute, ... as much as
[they] choose to. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of
orphans and widows . . . briefly, he is the protector of all those in need (65.67).

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, no. 66, Of the Eucharist:

21 “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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,
have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when
He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;
and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is
My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the
mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of
water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated,
you either know or can learn.”
We recognize in this testimony the organization of the Eucharistic celebration as it was
henceforth transmitted, with the following elements in this order: the Liturgy of the Word, with
readings and preaching; general intersessions; the kiss of peace and the preparation of the bread
and wine; the Eucharistic Prayer, with the Amen of the assembly (which is said standing);
Communion, which is also sent to the absent.
The kiss of peace follows the general intersessions, a position on which all the documents before
the fifth century agree, in the East as well as in the West. After this date the kiss of peace became
a part of the communion rites in Rome and North Africa.
Justin connects all the aspects of ecclesial communion to the Christian assembly: prayers,
Eucharistic Communion, sharing, organized help for the needy. He does not omit mentioning that
the baptized consider themselves “brothers” (and sisters). But he does not make any allusion to a
community meal.
No clear testimony has come down to us on the subject of this mutation of the Eucharistic
celebration, whose model, the Last Supper, was indubitably a fellowship meal. Several evolutions
probably converged. We think first of the material conditions: the increase in the size of
congregations must have burst the too narrow framework of the community meal but also, very
early, theological reflection certainly influenced the perception that the faithful may have had of
the “Lord’s Supper” and had an effect on liturgical development.
Thus, the experiences of religious meals and sacred meals may have influenced the understanding
of the “Lord’s Supper”. According to a concept proper to Judaism, this meal was first seen as
“eating with Christ” recognized as present through faith, as shown by the testimony of the
disciples at Emmaus. An evolution occurred in the direction of "eating Christ" according to the
concept of Jewish sacrifices (“partners in the altar”, 1 Cor 10:18) and pagan sacred meals, in
 which the oblations offered to the deity and accepted by it were regarded as bearers of its
presence.
Basing himself on the First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho of Justin Martyr writing
around 150 AD, we can deduce the following liturgical structure was in use at that time:
1. Scripture Readings and Homily.
2. Intercessions and Kiss-of-Peace.
3. Bread and Cup.
4. Eucharistic Prayer (flexible) but following a fixed pattern with congregational “Amen”
5. Distribution of the elements by the deacons to those present and absent.
22 6. Collection.
This corresponds in general outline to the structure of the rite as used today and is the earliest
known example. The theology is as follows: the bread and wine are transformed into the Flesh
and Blood of Jesus; they are the pure sacrifice spoken of by Malachi (1:11) and the eucharistic
prayer itself is both a thanksgiving for creation and redemption and an anamnesis (Greek:
memorial) of the passion (and possibly the incarnation).
The development made in the understanding of the mystery of Christ and of all that is implied in
his divinity, was bound to give rise to new forms of liturgical expression inspired by the
surrounding culture and the ways it manifested its piety and veneration. This development is
already perceptible in the titles given to Christ: the servant of God, (according to Isaiah 42 and
so forth), proclaimed in the Acts of the Apostles (for instance 3:13, 26; 4:27), the Didache, and
the Apostolic Tradition; the Logos (Word or Reason), Shepherd, Teacher, true and unique High
Priest, later recognized by Christian communities. To be replaced yet a document named
Didascalia.

The Didache is an early Church treatise that includes instructions for Baptism and the Eucharist.
Most scholars date it to the late 1st century, and distinguish in it two separate Eucharistic
traditions, the earlier tradition in chapter 10 and the later one preceding it in chapter 9:

Chapter 9:
1. Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτως
εὐχαριστήσατε· 2. πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ
ποτηρίονυ Εὐχαριστοῦμεν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν,
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαυεὶδ τοῦ παιδός
σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 3. περὶ δὲ
τοῦ κλάσματος· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ
ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, ἧς
ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου.
σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 4. ὥσπερ ἦν
τοῦτο τὸ κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω
τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἕν, οὕτω
συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ τῶν
περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν. ὅτι
σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 5. μηδεὶς δὲ
φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας
ὑμῶν, ἀλλ’ οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα
κυρίου· καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου εἴρηκεν ὁ
κύριος· Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί.
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks
this way. First, concerning the cup: We thank
thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David
Thy servant, which You madest known to us
through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the
glory for ever… And concerning the broken
bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life
and knowledge which You madest known to
us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the
glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was
scattered over the hills, and was gathered
together and became one, so let Thy Church
be gathered together from the ends of the earth
into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and
the power through Jesus Christ for ever... But
let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist,
unless they have been baptized into the name
of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord
has said, “Give not that which is holy to the
dogs.”
 Didache 10:
Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι οὗτως
εὐχαριστήσατε· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ
ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὗ
κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, καὶ
ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ
ἀθανασίας, ἥς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
23 σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ, ἔκτισας τὰ
πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου, τροφήν τε
καὶ ποτὸν ἔδωκας τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς
ἀπόλαυσιν, ἵνα σοι εὐχαριστήσωσιν, ἡμῖν
δὲ ἐχαρίσω πνευματικὴν τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν
καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ τοῦ παιδός σου. πρὸ
πάντων εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, ὅτι δυνατὸς εἶ·
σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. μνήσθητι, κύριε,
τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου, τοῦ ῥύσασθαι αὐτὴν ἐν
τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, καὶ σύναξον αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν
τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, τὴν ἁγιασθεῖσαν, εἰς τὴν
σὴν βασιλείαν, ἣν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ· ὅτι σοῦ
ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
ἐλθέτω χάρις καὶ παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος
οὗτος. Ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ Δαυείδ. εἴ τις ἅγιός
ἐστιν, ἐρχέσθω· εἴ τις οὐκ ἔστι, μετανοείτω·
μαρὰν ἀθά· ἀμήν. τοῖς δὲ προφήταις
ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν.
But after you are filled, give thanks this way:
We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name,
which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts,
and for the knowledge and faith and
immortality which thou hast made known
unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the
glory for ever. Thou, Almighty Master, didst
create all things for the sake of thy name, and
hast given both meat and drink, for men to
enjoy, that we might give thanks unto thee, but
to us thou hast given spiritual meat and drink,
and life everlasting, through thy Son. Above
all, we thank thee that thou art able to save; to
thee be the glory for ever.
Remember, Lord, thy Church, to redeem it
from every evil, and to perfect it in thy love,
and gather it together from the four winds,
even that which has been sanctified for thy
kingdom which thou hast prepared for it; for
thine is the kingdom and the glory for ever.
Let grace come, and let this world pass away.
Hosanna to the Son of David. If anyone is holy
let him come (to the Eucharist); if anyone is
not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
But charge the prophets to give thanks, so far
as they are willing to do so.

According to the overwhelming consensus among scholars, the section beginning at 10.1 is a
reworking of the Birkat hamazon1 the prayer that ends the Jewish ritual meal. The Eucharist is
mentioned again in chapter 14:

Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες
κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε,
προεξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα
ὑμῶν, ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ᾐ. πᾶς
δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου
αὐτοῦ μὴ συνελθέτω ὑμῖν, ἕως οὗ
διαλλαγῶσιν, ἵνα μὴ κοινωθῇ ἡ θυσία
ὑμῶν. αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ
κυρίου· Ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ
προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν καθαράν. ὅτι
βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί, λέγει κύριος, καὶ τὸ
ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι.
“But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves
together, and break bread, and give
thanksgiving after having confessed your
transgressions, that your sacrifice may be
pure. But let no one that is at variance with his
fellow come together with you, until they be
reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be
profaned. For this is that which was spoken by
the Lord: In every place and time offer to me
a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith
the Lord, and my name is wonderful among
the nations.”

1
Birkat Hamazon or Birkat Hammazon (Hebrew: ‫ברכת המזון‬, trans. Blessing on Nourishment), known in
English as the Grace After Meals (Yiddish: ‫ ;בענטשן‬translit. bentshn or "to bless"). Birkat hamazon is typically
read to oneself after ordinary meals and often sung aloud on special occasions such as the Shabbat and festivals.
 Also, there is one possible pagan reference to an early morning celebration from about the year
112 in a letter Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan. He reports that the Christians sing hymns
to Christ at sunrise. This is commonly understood as a reference to the Eucharist.
The understanding follows this pattern: that the bread and wine that is blessed and consumed at
the end of the (transformed) Passover meal had a more real connection with Christ than would a
less “real” sign. The Didache emphasizes the importance of a proper disposition if this sign is to
have its effect, and involve a true, personal sacrifice: "confessing your transgressions so that your
sacrifice may be pure".
24

The Apostolic Tradition brings us some information on the ritual of Communion and the respect
owed the eucharistic gifts. But what is still more interesting is that it has preserved in chapter 4
the text of a Eucharistic Prayer in the ritual of the ordination of bishop. The Greek text having
been lost, we stumble against a few difficulties which we will indicate as the occasion arises.

The Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition

Initial dialogue
The Bishop begins:
The Lord be with you.
And all reply:
And with your spirit.
The Bishop continues:
Lift up your hearts.
Congregation:
We lift them up unto the Lord.
Bishop:
Let us give thanks to the Lord.
Congregation:
It is right and just.

Thanksgiving
The Bishop continues:
We give thanks to you God, through your beloved son Jesus Christ, whom you sent to us in
former times as Saviour, Redeemer, and Messenger of your Will, who is your inseparable Word,
through whom you made all, and in whom you were well-pleased, whom you sent from heaven
into the womb of a virgin, who, being conceived within her, was made flesh, and appeared as
your Son, born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin. It is he who, fulfilling your will and acquiring
for you a holy people, extended his hands in suffering, in order to liberate from sufferings those
who believe in you.

Words of Institution
Who, when he was delivered to voluntary suffering, in order to dissolve death, and break the
chains of the devil, and tread down hell, and bring the just to the light, and set the limit, and
manifest the resurrection, taking the bread, and giving thanks to you, said, “Take, eat, for this is
my body which is broken for you.” Likewise, the chalice, saying, this is my blood which is shed
for you. Whenever you do this, do this [in] memory of me.
 Anamnesis and Oblation
Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the chalice,
giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy to stand before you and to serve as your priests.

Epiclesis
And we pray that you would send your Holy Spirit to the oblation of your Holy Church. In their
gathering together, give to all those who partake of your holy mysteries the fullness of the Holy
Spirit, toward the strengthening of the faith in truth,

25 Doxology
that we may praise you and glorify you, through your son Jesus Christ, through whom to you be
glory and honor, Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit, in your Holy Church, now and always,
[Amen].
Explanation of some important concepts

→ Anaphora
The Anaphora is the most solemn part of the Divine Liturgy, or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
during which the offerings of bread and wine are consecrated as the body and blood of Christ.
This is the usual name for this part of the Liturgy in Greek-speaking Eastern Christianity. In
western Christian traditions which have a comparable rite, the Anaphora is more often called the
Roman Canon in the Latin liturgy, or the Eucharistic Prayer for the three-additional modern
anaphoras. When the Roman Rite had a single Eucharistic Prayer (between the Council of Trent
and Vatican II), it was called the Canon of the Mass.
“Anaphora” is a Greek word (ἀναφορά) meaning a “carrying back” (hence its meaning in rhetoric
and linguistics) or a “carrying up”, and so an “offering” (hence its use in reference to the offering
of sacrifice to God). In the sacrificial language of the Greek version of the Old Testament known
as the Septuagint, προσφέρειν (prospherein) is used of the offerer’s bringing the victim to the
altar, and ἀναφέρειν (anaphorein) is used of the priest’s offering up the selected portion upon the
altar (see, for instance, Leviticus 2:14, 2:16, 3:1, 3:5).

→ Anamnesis
Anamnesis (from the Attic Greek word ἀνάμνησις meaning “reminiscence” or “memorial
sacrifice”), in Christianity, is a liturgical statement in which the Church refers to the memorial
character of the Eucharist. Almost all Eucharistic Prayers (or Anaphoras) contain an Anamnesis.
This part of the Anaphora is usually placed after the consecration, i.e. after the account of the
Last Supper in which are pronounced the Words of Institution spoken by Jesus Christ. It has its
origin in Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, “Do this in memory of me” (Greek: “τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς
τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν”, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25).
In a wider sense, anamnesis is a key concept in the liturgical theology: in worship the faithful
recall God's saving deeds. This memorial aspect is not simply a passive process but one by which
the Christian can actually enter into the Paschal mystery (Passion, Resurrection and Ascension
of Christ). Example for the 2. Anamnesis:
EP II: Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord,
the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be
in your presence and minister to you.
 → Epiclesis
The epiclesis (from Ancient Greek: ἐπίκλησις “invocation” or “calling down from on high”) is
the part of the anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) by which the priest invokes the Holy Spirit (or the
power of His blessing) upon the Eucharistic bread and wine.
In most Eastern Christian traditions, the epiclesis comes after the anamnesis; in the Western Rite
it usually precedes.

Example (Roman-catholic rites):

EP II: Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray by sending down your Spirit upon them like the
26 dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
EP III: Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you by the same Spirit graciously make holy these
gifts we have brought to you for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood
of your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate these mysteries.
EP IV: Therefore, O Lord, we pray: may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these
offerings, that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration
of this great mystery which he himself left us as an eternal covenant.
EP I: It is sometimes said that, in the Roman Rite of Mass, the prayer Quam oblationem of the
Roman Canon represents an implicit epiclesis:
Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect;
make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most
beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Roman Canon mentions the Holy Spirit explicitly only once, in the final doxology: "Through
him [Christ], and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honour is yours, for ever and ever."

→ Embolism
The embolism (from Greek ἐμβολισμός, an interpolation) in liturgy is a short prayer said or sung
after the Lord’s Prayer:
Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help
of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed
hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.
In the Roman Rite of Mass, the embolism is followed by the doxology or, in the Tridentine Mass
(which does not have that doxology), by the fraction2.
According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, “[t]he embolism may date back to the first
centuries, since, under various forms, it is found in all the Occidental and in a great many Oriental,
particularly Syrian liturgies.”
The embolism is not used in the Greek liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. In the
Liturgy of St. James the English translation of the embolism is as follows:
“Lord, lead us not into temptation, Lord of Hosts! for thou dost know our frailty; but deliver
us from the wicked one, from all his works, from all his assaults and craftiness; through
thy holy name, which we call upon to guard us in our lowliness.”
In the Mozarabic Rite (VI-XI century in Spain) this prayer is recited not only in the Mass, but
also after the Our Father at Lauds and Vespers.

2
The Fraction is the ceremonial act of breaking the consecrated bread during the Eucharistic rite in some
Christian denominations. In the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, it is accompanied by the singing or recitation
of the Agnus Dei.
 A few quotations of the fathers of the Church
Ignatius of Antioch (born c. 35 or 50, died between 98 and 117), one of the Apostolic Fathers,
mentions the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”:
“... (t)he eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins,
and which in His loving-kindness the Father raised up. (...) Let that eucharist alone be
considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it. ... It is not lawful
apart from the bishop either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast. But whatsoever he approves,
that also is well-pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid”.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans
27
“Give heed to keep one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one
cup unto union with His blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the
presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants; that whatsoever you do, you may do
according unto God.” Letter to the Philadelphians
He speaks of his disposition and gives spiritual meaning to the blood:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of
God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I
desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible.”
He recommended Christians to stay aloof from heretics who “confess not the Eucharist to be the
flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His
goodness, raised up again” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans). (Note the use of “which”, referring to “the
flesh”, not “who”, which would refer to “our Saviour Jesus Christ”).

Clearly, by 155 A.D., the basic structure of the Eucharist, as it is known today, is evident.
Moreover, approximately sixty years later, St. Hippolytus composed a model Eucharistic prayer
to be used by the celebrant; this prayer is today’s second canon of the modern Roman Rite.

From St. Clement of Alexandria; A.D. 191:

“'Eat My Flesh.' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate
nutriments. He delivers over His Flesh and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for
the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!” (The Instructor of Children).

Evidence from a slightly later period comes from Irenaeus. In his debate with Gnostics who
favoured an immaterial religion, the former affirms; A.D. 189:
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes
our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body,
from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and
water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body
of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can
they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life –
flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of
him?” (Against Heresies).

Hippolytus; A.D. 217:

“And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table" [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ's]
honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered
sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable
table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary
on Proverbs).
 When we move from the apostolic into the patristic period, we find that the process of developing
understanding of the eucharist, already initiated in the NT, continues. This affects both the
liturgical setting of the eucharist and the theology on which that liturgy was based. Gradually the
familiar meal-character of the eucharist became less pronounced, particularly after the ritual was
joined to a regular liturgy of the word (first witnessed in St. Justin, c. 150 A.D.) to form what we
call the Mass. The eucharist now belongs to the solemn public worship of the Christian
community. In other ways, too, cultic aspects of the eucharist are brought out more and more.
Cultic terms begin to occur more frequently such as “sacrifice”, “altar“, “priest”. A particularly
significant stage is reached when the eucharist is seen as not only the sacrifice of the whole people
28 (the NT sense) but as one answering the sacrificial needs of the individual.
The understanding of the eucharistic change also underwent significant development at the hands
of the Fathers. In the gospel this mystery had been expressed in what we might call the language
of identity. "This is my body." Early on, other forms of language emerged side by side with that
of the NT. Very soon there was the language of change: bread and wine become Christs body
and blood. This is just beginning in St. Justin (Apology I, 66). Later there emerged the language
of symbolism. To appreciate this last we have to set aside a common modern assumption that
sign and reality are opposed. In the ancient world this is not necessarily so. Symbolism is realist
or ontological. Signs not only signify what they symbolize but participate in the reality.
As an example, we might cite the fourth-century Anaphora of Serapion:
“11. Heaven is full, the earth is also full of thy sublime glory, O Lord of hosts. Extend thy
power upon this sacrifice and grant thy aid to its fulfilment; for it is to thee that we have
offered this living victim, the un-bloody sacrifice. 12. To thee have we offered this bread,
the likeness of the body of thine only Son. This bread is the image of His holy body; for
‘the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, broke it, and gave it to
His disciples and said: Take and eat, this is my body, which shall be broken for you,’ for
the remission of sins. 13. Therefore have we, by repeating the figure of His death, offered
the bread and pray: By this sacrifice reconcile thyself with us all and have mercy upon us,
O God of truth. And as this bread was scattered upon the hills and brought together into
one, so do thou unite thy holy Church from every people and every land and every city and
every village and house and build up one living Catholic Church. 14. We have also offered
the chalice, the symbol of the blood; for the Lord Jesus, ‘after He had supped, took the cup
and said to His disciples: Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which
shall be shed for the remission of sins.’ Therefore, have we also offered the chalice,
because we have consummated the symbol of the blood.”
In this prayer the bread becomes the “likeness” of Christs body, the wine becomes the likenesses
of Christ's blood, and the whole eucharistic action is seen as the “likeness of his death.” In the
mentality of that time these expressions affirm the actuality of Christ’s body and blood and
sacrifice in the Eucharist. Generally, the great eucharistic prayers of the church are a convenient
place in which to study the understanding of the eucharist in the patristic period, since so many
of the main prayer were composed at that time. From the Canon of Hippolytus at the beginning
of the third century these prayers have spoken of the eucharist as an offering, the sacrificial nature
of the celebration is particularly clear in the Roman. Canon. Finally, the "epiclesis" section 'of
the canons, namely that part which prays that bread and wine, become the body and blood of
Christ, is very clear manifestation of belief in the fact of the eucharistic change.

The Liturgy in the Roman Empire after the Peace of the Church
In 313, by what is called the Edict of Milan, Emperors Licinius and Constantine put an end to
the persecutions against Christians and ordered the restitution of their places of worship. Christian
communities were now to enjoy a definitely more favourable status in the Roman Empire, and in
 380, Emperor Theodosius recognized Christianity as the state religion. All of this resulted in
massive conversions and in the expansion of the communities. It became necessary to adapt the
institutions of the churches to these new conditions.
The founding of new communities and the ease of communication insured by the imperial
administration led the churches to improve their territorial organization. The bishops of more
important cities were given primacy, and even jurisdiction, over their colleagues of the same
district. Thus, the Council of Nicaea (325) legitimated the rights of the bishops of Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch and the honours due to Jerusalem. Later on, the Councils of
Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451) recognized the primacy of honour – after Rome –
29 of Constantinople, the new capital of the Empire. Around these five cities, Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the five great patriarchates were established. But the bishops
of other important metropolises – such as Carthage, Caesarea of Cappadocia, the capitals of
independent kingdoms, and so on – also exercised jurisdiction over neighbouring cities.
This organization into districts had repercussions in the liturgical domain because the churches
of the same province tended to take their inspiration from the traditions of the metropolitan
church. The regular convening of local synods also contributed to a certain unity in rituals,
although without abolishing the autonomy of the local churches. However, every church felt
obliged – and in the fourth century, this concern was very prevalent – to seek a connection with
apostolic foundations, albeit through the intermediary of other persons named in the New
Testament. Two examples: Caesarea of Palestine claimed to have had Zaccheus as its first bishop;
the church of Berea in Macedonia believed it had been founded by Onesimus, the freed slave
Paul mentions in his letter to Philemon.
The division of the Roman Empire into two parts, West and East, was definitive from 364 on,
under Valentinian and Valens. However, shortly afterwards, because of the barbarian invasions
and the fall of Rome and of its last emperor, whatever remained of the Western Empire officially
became a province of the Eastern Empire, while in fact being delivered into the invaders’ power.
In the course of the sixth century, the Byzantines recaptured a great part of Italy and the city of
Rome from the invaders and established Greek colonies there. Emperor Justinian (537–565)
restored the unity of the Empire for some time. Communication and exchanges between Latins
and Greeks continued during the better part of the first millennium, and the flourishing of
Byzantium in the cultural domain profoundly marked the West.
Four of the great patriarchates were located in the Eastern part of the Empire: Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Their common language was Greek. Rome was the only
patriarchate of the Western Empire and its language was Latin. In its capacity of new Rome,
Constantinople progressively gained primacy among the Eastern patriarchates. This position was
strengthened as a result of the schism of the churches of Egypt and Syria after the Council of
Chalcedon (451). The patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem broke away from
Constantinople, which remained the sole guarantor of orthodoxy in the East. Later on, the
traditions of the church of Constantinople were imposed on all other churches that had remained
under imperial jurisdiction, even on those which Byzantium reconstituted in the territories that
had embraced the schism, Syria and Egypt. At the same time, the churches separated from
Constantinople and Greek culture developed their own traditions in the local tongues (Coptic,
Syriac, Armenian).
The liturgical institutions of the fourth and fifth centuries are well known, thanks to abundant
documentation comprising writings of different genres: church orders, homilies, catecheses,
letters, stories. These documents complement one another and allow us to reconstruct almost
entirely the rituals in use for several churches.
A Compilation of Earlier Church Orders. Among church orders, the most important bears a title
which may appear anachronistic to us: Apostolic Constitutions. What we have here is a
 compilation in which three documents, were collected and reworked: the Didascalia, Didache,
and Apostolic Tradition. Several other documents were added, in particular series of blessings of
synagogal origin and rituals. The whole thing is presented as a collection of traditions coming
from the apostles and assembled by Clement of Rome, Peter’s companion. This appeal to
apostolic origin was supposed to guarantee the authority of the document; nothing prevents us
from believing that certain traditions collected here were of apostolic origin, but the bulk of the
work is made up of developments of what had germinated in the first Christian communities and
of adaptations to new circumstances.
This assemblage of rulings deals with pastoral and canonical questions, but more particularly
30 with liturgical celebrations. It seems to have been put together in Syria, in the region of Antioch,
about 380. It has come down to us in its original version, Greek. The institutions it describes were
those of a large community.
The Ceremonial of the Eucharistic Liturgy. We find in the Apostolic Constitutions an overall
presentation of the eucharistic ceremonial. It is presented – anachronistically – as coming from
the apostles themselves, but the information concurs with other Syrian testimonies of the fourth
century:
“Let the reader, standing on a high place in the middle, read the books of Moses, of Joshua
the son of Nun, of the Judges, and of the Kings and of the Chronicles, and those written
after the return from the captivity; and besides these, the books of Job and of Solomon,
and of the sixteen prophets. After two lessons have been read, let some other person sing
the hymns of David, and let the people join in singing the refrains. Afterwards let our Acts
be read, and the Epistles of Paul our fellow-worker, which he sent to the Churches under
the directions of the Holy Spirit; and after that let a presbyter or a deacon read the Gospels,
those which I, Matthew, and John have delivered to you, and those which the fellow-
workers of Paul, Luke and Mark, compiled and left to you. And while the Gospel is read,
let all the presbyters and deacons, and the whole people, stand in profound silence… Next
let the presbyters, each in turn, not all together, exhort the people, and lastly the bishop, as
captain of the ship.
Let the doorkeepers stand at the men's entrances to observe them, and the deaconesses at
those of the women… Let the deacon attend to the placings, so that everyone who comes
in may go to his or her proper place, and not sit next to the entrance. In the same way let
the deacon keep watch on the people, that nobody may whisper or sleep or laugh or nod or
beckon…
After this, let all rise up with one consent and, looking towards the east, after the departure
of the catechumens and the penitents, pray to God, who ascended up to the heaven of
heavens, towards the east… After the prayer, let some of the deacons concern themselves
with the offering of the eucharist, ministering with fear to the body of the Lord, and let the
others crowd and keep them silent. Let the deacon who is at the bishop's side say to the
people: 'Let no one have any quarrel with another! Let no one come in hypocrisy!'
Then let the men salute the men, and the women the women, with the kiss of peace in
the Lord, but let none do it deceitfully, like Judas who betrayed the Lord with a kiss.
After this, let the deacon pray for the whole Church, for the whole world, and for the
several parts of it, and for abundance of the fruits of the earth, for the priests and rulers,
for the bishop, for the king, and for universal peace. Then let the bishop praying for
peace upon the people, bless them…
After this let the sacrifice take place, all the people standing and praying in silence:
and when the oblation has been made, let every group by itself partake in order of the
Lord's body and of the precious blood, and approach with reverence and godly fear, as
to the body of a king. Let the women approach with their heads covered...”
 Besides this description of the ritual, the Apostolic Constitutions have also collected, in book 8,
the texts of diaconal directions and priestly prayers: prayers for the dismissal of the catechumens,
the possessed, and the penitents; general intercessions; Eucharistic Prayer; and prayers after
communion (8.6-15). In the ceremonial of book 8, the kiss of peace comes after the general
intercessions, whereas in the excerpt just quoted, the two are reversed; but this inversion seems
fortuitous.
We do not have documents as detailed on the practice of other churches. However, by interpreting
various allusions gleaned here and there, we can surmise that, overall, the eucharistic ritual was
almost identical in all the churches in the fourth century, except for the place of the kiss of peace,
31 which in Africa and Rome followed the Eucharistic Prayer.
The Apostolic Constitutions above lists the following elements: readings, psalmody,
preaching, kiss of peace, general intersessions and their concluding prayer, bringing of the
gifts, Eucharistic Prayer, and Communion. There is no mention of an entrance ritual. From
allusions made by John Chrysostom and Augustine – and they agree – we know that the
opening of the celebration was then very short: the bishop entered the church, went to his
place, and saluted the assembly (“The Lord (or Peace) be with you!”).
The readings began immediately. The ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions indicates the books
to be read, without specifying the number of readings. These were chosen from the whole
Bible and offered in the following order: Old Testament, epistles, gospel. Other sources
specify three, five, or seven readings, even twelve during vigils. As for preaching, what is
said about the contribution of several presbyters and the bishop corresponds to Egeria’s
testimony quoted above.
We know of two forms of general intersessions. First, a series of diaconal biddings (up to
sixteen or eighteen) with repeated responses by the assembly (Kyrie eleison) and concluding
prayer, as in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Byzantine liturgy. Second, diaconal biddings
followed by silent prayer on the part of the assembly and by a prayer said by the priest; this
form was in use in Rome and North Africa, and a witness to it remains in the present Roman
liturgy on Good Friday.
According to most witnesses of that period, only the deacons seem to have had the duty of
bringing the gifts: they brought to the altar the bread and wine selected from the offerings
received before the celebration. Theodore of Mopsuestia offered a mystagogical
commentary on this function:
“We must see Christ who now goes and is led to his passion; at another moment, again
he is lying for us on the altar in order to be immolated. This is why those deacons who
lay the altar cloths on the altar offer us the image of the linens used at the burial. And
the bishop begins to give [the kiss of] peace; the church herald [that is, the deacon]
orders the people to give peace one to another. (…) Then the bishop washes his hands.
(…) The lists of names of the living and the dead written on church tablets are read.
… [then comes the Eucharistic Prayer]” (Catechetical Homily 15)
The tablets mentioned here were used to write the names of persons to be recommended to God
during the oblation. Other contemporary documents also allude to them. The letter of Pope
Innocent I to Decentius so attests to the Roman practice, represented by the memorial of the
living which has remained in place at the beginning of the present Eucharistic Prayer 1.
Book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions has preserved a very extensive Eucharistic Prayer (8.12.4-
51). We do not know how widely it was diffused. Nevertheless, its structure corresponds to that
of the Eucharistic Prayers of the Eastern churches; it has inspired our own Eucharistic Prayer 4.
It is a unified composition depicting a vast synthesis of the economy of salvation in order to
proclaim its effective realization in the Eucharist.
 Other Eucharistic Prayers (or anaphoras) received their definitive form in the same period. It has
been established that Basil the Great modified and enlarged an already existing formulary. He
gave his name to this Eucharistic Prayer, still in use in Byzantine churches on certain occasions,
among them the Sundays in Lent.
Called the Anaphora of St. Basil, it has the following general outline:
• Initial dialogue (the first salutation corresponds to 2 Cor 13:13).
• Initial formula of blessing: “God, almighty Father, how fitting and proper it is to the
majesty of your holiness to praise you, to sing to you, to bless you, to glorify you…”
• Contemplation of God’s mystery: “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…who is the image of
32
your goodness… through whom the Holy Spirit has been manifested.”
• Participation in the heavenly liturgy and singing of the biblical Trisagion (“Holy, holy,
holy, Lord of Hosts…”)
• Anamnesis of God's wondrous deeds and of the economy of salvation, from creation to the
incarnation.
• Narrative of the eucharistic institution.
• Prayer of the eucharistic oblation: Christological anamnesis and offering of the oblation.
• Epiclesis: “We implore you… to send your Holy Spirit on us and these gifts... let it bless
them and sanctify them…”
• Prayers of intercession, within the communion of saints.
• Final doxology.

Like Basil, John Chrysostom adapted an existing formulary, and his name has remained attached
to it. This Eucharistic Prayer, called the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, is the one most often
used in Byzantine churches.
The Eucharistic Prayer (or Canon) of the Roman church differs from those of the Eastern
churches in that it contains changing parts, especially prefaces. The preface is a thanksgiving
which changes with the liturgical times and feasts that are celebrated, whereas the Eastern
Eucharistic Prayers always give thanks for the whole of the mystery of salvation. Before the
imposition of uniformity in the ninth century, other Western churches had their own eucharistic
formulas. And even afterwards, some kept traces of these formulas, among them the Milanese
(Ambrosian) and Iberian (Mozarabic) liturgies.
In several commentaries of the fourth century, the rites of Communion immediately follow the
Eucharistic Prayer. As a consequence, the place of the Our Father in the ancient liturgies is
difficult to determine. The Apostolic Constitutions are silent on this subject. On the other hand,
Cyril of Jerusalem comments on the Lord's Prayer in his catechesis on the eucharistic celebration.
The assemblies having become large, the material preparation for Communion by the breaking
of the bread took time.
Rituals and commentaries mention the formulas of acclamation and the psalms that
accompanied the distribution of the bread and wine made Eucharist. For their part, the
catechists explained the way one should receive Communion, as did Cyril of Jerusalem:
“Make your left hand like a throne for your right, which is about to receive the King. And
having cupped your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying, “Amen”. Then after you
have with care hallowed your eyes by touching them with the Holy Body, partake thereof;
taking heed lest you lose any of it…
Approach also the Cup of His Blood. Not stretching forth your hands, but bending and
saying with worship and reverence, “Amen”, be hallowed by partaking also of the blood
of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touching it with your hands, hallow
your eyes and brow and other senses. Then wait for the prayer and give thanks to God,
who has accounted you worthy of such great mysteries” (Mystagogical Catecheses 5)
 The prayer mentioned at the end of this passage was that of the post-communion. Several
documents have preserved for us examples of this prayer, for instance the Euchologion of
Sarapion:
“We give thanks to you, Master, for you have called the erring and taken notice of those
who have sinned, and you set aside the threat against us. You yielded to your love of
humanity and you wiped it away in repentance and rejected it according to your own
knowledge. We give you thanks because you have given us communion of the body and
blood. Bless us, bless this people, make us to have a portion with the body and the blood.
Through your only-begotten son through whom the glory and the power are yours in [the]
33 holy Spirit both now and forever and to all the ages of ages” (no. 4).

By about the middle of the 4th century there were certainly some liturgical books, how long
before that anything was written one cannot say. The first part of the liturgy to have been written
appears to have been the Diptychs. The word Diptych is derived from the Greek for twice folded.
A Diptych consisted of two tablets [covered with wax at the beginning] hinged and folded
together like a book. On one the names of the living for whom prayers were to be said were
written, on the other the names of the dead. These names were then read out by the deacon at the
appointed place in the liturgy. Their use, in the East went on till far into the middle ages. Then
the lessons were set down in a book. The old custom of reading from the Bible until the bishop
made a sign to stop, soon gave way to a more orderly plan of reading a certain fixed amount at
each liturgy.
The earliest Roman Sacramentaries are the first complete sources for the Roman Rite. These
were written in the Latin language which had gradually replaced Greek as the language of the
Roman liturgy. Scholars differ as to the precise time when the transition was complete, giving
dates from the second half of the third century up to the end of the fourth. Both languages must
have been used side by side during a fairly long period of transition. The genius of the Latin
language certainly affected the ethos of the Roman Rite. Latin is naturally terse and austere when
compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek. It was a natural tendency of Latin to curtail
redundant phrases, and this terseness and austerity are a noticeable mark of the Roman Mass.
Of the Sacramentaries, three stand out as the earliest, the most complete, the most important in
every way. These are the so-called Leonine, Gelasian, and Gregorian Sacramentaries, named
respectively after three popes St. Leo [440-61], Gelasius [492-6], and St. Gregory the Great [590-
604]. The names imply an authorship which cannot be substantiated even in the case of St.
Gregory. There is no evidence that Pope Gelasius contributed anything to the Sacramentary
attributed to him; St. Leo may have composed some of the prayers in the Leonine Sacramentary,
but this is not certain; but the Gregorian Sacramentary almost certainly contains some material
composed by St. Gregory. The Leonine Sacramentary, the Sacramentarium Leonianum, the
oldest of the three, can be found in a seventh century manuscript preserved in the Chapter Library
at Verona. The Sacramentary had been preceded by what were known as Libelli Missarum.
They were small books containing the formularies for parts of the Mass for the Church in a
particular diocese or locality, but not the Canon which was fixed, the readings, or the sung parts.
They provided the intermediary between extempore celebrations and the fixed formularies of the
Sacramentary. No actual examples are known to have survived, but the certainty of their existence
is known through literary references, and above all through the Leonine Sacramentary which
consists of a collection of Libelli. Unfortunately, the collection is not complete, and lacks both
the Order and the Canon of the Mass, but it contains many Mass propers which can still be found
in the Roman Missal. The Gelasian Sacramentary is the oldest Roman Mass-book in the proper
sense of the term. It is far more complete than the Leonine, and has the feasts arranged according
 to the Ecclesiastical Year. It also contains the Canon and several votive Masses. The most ancient
extant manuscript dates from the 8th century and contains some Gallican material.
The Reform of St. Gregory the Great. St. Gregory the Great became Pope in 590 and reigned
until 604. His achievements during those fourteen years almost defy credibility. Prominent
among the many important reforms that he undertook was that of the liturgy. His pontificate
marks an epoch in the history of the Roman Mass, which, in every important respect he left in
the state that we still have it. He collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius into one book, leaving
out much but changing little. What we now refer to as The Gregorian Sacramentary cannot be
ascribed to the Pope himself as, apart from other evidence, it contains a Mass for his feast, but it
34 is certainly based upon his reform of the liturgy and includes some material composed by him.
The keynote of the reform of St. Gregory was fidelity to the traditions that had been handed down
[the root meaning of the Latin word traditio is to hand over or hand down]. His reform consisted
principally of the simplification and more orderly arrangement of the existing rite, the reduction
of the variable prayers at each Mass to three [Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion], and a
reduction of the variations occurring at that time within the Canon, prefaces and additional forms
for the Communicantes and Hanc Igitur3. These variations can still be found on a very few
occasions such as Christmas and Easter. His principal work was certainly the definitive
arrangement of the Roman Canon. The Lectionary was also given a definitive form but was still
to undergo considerable change subsequently. The Order of Mass as found in the 1570 Missal of
St. Pius [1566-1572], apart from minor additions and amplifications, corresponds very closely
with the order established by St. Gregory. It is also to this great Pope that we owe, to a large
extent, the codification of the incomparable chant that bears his name.
Eastern and Gallican Additions to the Roman Rite. The Roman Mass as reformed by St.
Gregory gradually spread and became predominant not only in Italy, but also beyond the Alps.
The prestige of the Roman Church, the sober nature of her liturgy, the fact that at Rome were the
tombs of the Prince of the Apostles and many other martyrs, all combined to give the Roman
liturgy a distinctive ethos of authenticity and authority. In addition, the absence of any great
primatial see in Europe, but for Toledo in Spain, and the troubled nature of the times, favoured
this rapid expansion. But during this expansion the Roman liturgy absorbed features of local, that
is to say Gallican, traditions which, derived from an earlier period and with affinities to eastern
usages. Some of these Gallican features were eventually to find their way to Rome and to be
incorporated into the Roman Mass itself.
The Sacramentary that bears the name of St. Gregory is the term used for a family of
Sacramentaries which emerged after his pontificate. The most important of the Gregorian
Sacramentaries is the one referred to as The Adrianum. It was sent by Pope Adrian I [722-795]
to Charlemagne at the request of the Emperor in 785 or 786. Charlemagne had asked for a Roman
Massbook as he wished to standardize the liturgy in his Empire in accordance with the Roman
usage. He was helped in this task by Alcuin, an English monk, who made up for deficiencies in
the Roman Sacramentary by adding material from Gelasian Sacramentaries current in Gaul,
sacramentaries which contained Gallican material. Alcuin's mixed rite Sacramentary found its
way back to Rome and material from it found its way into the Roman Sacramentary. It is from
this Gallicanized Roman Sacramentary that the finalized Roman Missal was eventually compiled.
By the 11th century, and at the latest the latest the 12th century, this Gallicanized Roman rite had

3
“Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostræ, sed et cunctæ familiæ tuæ, quæsumus, Domine, ut placatus
accipias: diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab æterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum
tuorum iubeas grege numerari. (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)”
(This oblation, therefore, of our service, and that of Thy whole family, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to
accept and to dispose our days in Thy peace, and to command us to be delivered from eternal damnation, and to
be numbered in the flock of Thine elect. [Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.])
 supplanted all the pure Gallican rites in the west with the exception of the survival of the
Mozarabic rite at Toledo and a Romanized version of the Ambrosian rite in Milan. The principal
that rite follows patriarchate had finally prevailed in the West as well as the East.
With introduction in 1969 of the Mass of Paul VI, it was allowed to have multiple choices of
Eucharistic Prayer, however the authorization of new Eucharistic Prayers is reserved to the Holy
See. All the new Eucharistic Prayers follow the Antiochene structure with the noticeable
difference that the Epiclesis is placed, according to the uses of the Roman tradition, before the
Words of Institution and not after. The first approved Eucharistic Prayers are four:
35
• Eucharistic Prayer n. 1: it is the ancient Roman Canon with minimal variations. This ancient
text is especially appropriate for Sundays, unless for pastoral considerations Eucharistic
Prayer III is preferred.
• Eucharistic Prayer n. 2: it is based on the ancient Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition with
some adaptations to bring it in line with the other prayers. It is quite short, so it is appropriate
for weekday use. It has its own Preface, based on the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition, but
it can be substituted by the proper Preface of the Mass of the day;
• Eucharistic Prayer n. 3: it is a new composition that uses the Antiochene structure filled with
Alexandrine and Roman themes. Its use is preferred on Sundays and feast days and it is to be
used with the proper Preface of the day;
• Eucharistic Prayer n. 4: it is a new composition with a strong sacrificial wording and a fuller
summary of Salvation history. It has its own Preface that cannot be substituted. It is based on
Eastern anaphoras; especially that of St. Basil the Great.
 Types of the liturgy

In the three hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christian practices and beliefs regarding the
Eucharist took definitive shape as central to Christian worship. At first, they spread through word
of mouth, but within a generation Christians had begun writing about Jesus and about Christian
practice, the Eucharist included. The theology of the Eucharist and its role as a sacrament
developed during this period.
In the middle of the third century, the liturgical language of the Church changed from Greek to
36
Latin. Furthermore, the development of Gregorian chant and the near universal facing East for
the Mass gave shape to the early Roman Rite, especially as codified by St. Gregory the Great.
This classic Roman Mass was purified at the time of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century;
it was further rearranged and adapted at the Second Vatican Council of the mid-twentieth century.
The liturgical reform of the Mass at Vatican II is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite today.
Pope Benedict XVI’s recent personal intervention has restored the pre-Vatican II rite of the Mass,
which is now called the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.

Types of Eucharistic anaphora

Eucharistic anaphora according to
anamnesis-dynamism
The anamnesis section + embolism
The epiclesis section
Didache
Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition
Apologia of St. Justin
Liturgy of St. James
Liturgy of St. Basil (from Alexandria)
Anaphora 5 of the Ambrosius Church
Eucharistic anaphora according to
epiclesis-dynamism
The anamnesis section
The epiclesis section + embolism
Anaphora of Addai and Mari
Euchologion of Seraphion
Anaphora of St. Mark
Roman Canon
The new anaphoras in the Roman-catholic church
Anaphora of the Church of Zaire

2. Anaphoras/Eucharistic Prayer in the Christian Churches

• Western Christianity – catholic:
→ Roman Rite
→ Mozarabic Rite
→ Gallican Rite
→ Ambrosian Rite
• Antiochene Rites:
→ Byzantine Rite (Divine Liturgies)
1. The Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom,
2. The Anaphora of St. Basil,
3. Anaphora of St. James

→ Syro-Antiochene
1. Anaphora of Twelve Apostles
2. Anaphora of St. James, a different anaphora from the Byzantine Rite's
3. Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist
4. Anaphora of St. Peter
5. Anaphora of St. John the Evangelist
 6. Anaphora of St. Xystus of Rome
7. Anaphora of St. Julius of Rome
8. Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, a different anaphora from the Byzantine Rite version
9. Anaphora of St. Cyril of Alexandria
10.Anaphora of St. Jacob of Serugh
11.Anaphora of St. Philoxenus of Mabbug
12.Anaphora of St. Severus of Antioch
13.Anaphora of Mar Jacob Bar-Salibi
→ Armenia Apostolic Church uses currently the Anaphora of St. Athanasius
37 → Coptic Church:
1. Anaphora of St. Basil
2. Anaphora of St. Gregory
• Alexandrian Rite:
The main currently used anaphora of the Alexandrian Rite is the Liturgy of Saint Cyril the Great,
which is a revision of the first Alexandrian Liturgy composed by Saint Mark. The Ethiopian
Orthodox Church makes use of no less than 14 official anaphoras. Some Ethiopian monasteries
use additional Anaphoras as a local practice.
• East Syrian Rite:
1. Anaphora of Addai and Mari, used today by different Churches in different versions due
to many additions.
2. Anaphora of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, used in Advent time
3. Anaphora of Mar Nestorius, used in some feasts
• Western Christianity – protestants:
→ Lutheran Churches – the Luther Mass – Von Ordnung des Gottesdienstes in der Gemeinde
(1523)
→ Reform Churches – John Kalwin – La forme des prieres et chants ecclesiastiques (1542)
→ Anglican Communion – the Book of Common Prayer (1549)
→ Methodist Rite – the Book of Worship
 Roman type4 Alexandrian type Antiochene type East Syrian type
Opening Dialogue: Opening Dialogue: Opening Dialogue: Opening Dialogue:
“The Lord be with you!” “The Lord be with you! “The Lord be with you! “The Lord be with you!
Preface Preface Preface Preface
Intercessions or
intercessory prayer
Ante-Sanctus or Pre- Ante-Sanctus or Pre- Ante-Sanctus or Pre- Ante-Sanctus or Pre-
Sanctus5: Sanctus: Sanctus: Sanctus:
Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus
Post-Sanctus6 Post-Sanctus Post-Sanctus
38 Epiclesis I Epiclesis I
7
Institution narrative ; Institution narrative Institution narrative Institution narrative
Consecration
Anamnesis Anamnesis Anamnesis Anamnesis
Epiclesis II Epiclesis II Epiclesis I +II
Intercessions Intercessions Intercessions
Epiclesis I
Doxology Doxology Doxology Doxology
Particular churches sui iuris sorted by liturgical traditions
• Latin liturgical tradition: • Byzantine liturgical tradition:
o Latin Church o Albanian Greek Catholic Church
• Alexandrian liturgical tradition: o Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
o Coptic Catholic Church o Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
o Ethiopian Catholic Church o Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia and
o Eritrean Catholic Church Serbia
• Antiochian liturgical tradition: o Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
o Maronite Church o Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
o Syrian Catholic Church o Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
o Syro-Malankara Catholic o Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Church o Melkite Greek Catholic Church
• Armenian liturgical tradition: o Romanian Church United with Rome,
o Armenian Catholic Church Greek-Catholic
• Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical o Russian Greek Catholic Church
tradition: o Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church
o Chaldean Catholic Church o Slovak Greek Catholic Church
o Syro-Malabar Catholic Church o Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

4
Without Roman Canon.
5
EP II: “And so, with the Angels and all the Saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim…”
6
The Post-Sanctus, recalling the whole history of Salvation, from the Original Sin to the Incarnation, Passion,
Resurrection of Christ up to the Last Judgment.
7
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT, FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.
(…) TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW
AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
 Theology of the Eucharist

The main points of doctrine on the Eucharist can be grouped under the following headings:
• Eucharistic Presence,
• Eucharistic Sacrifice,
• Related topics: ministry, eucharistic adoration, receiving, eschatological dimension.
From Scripture alone we have proved that Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present
39
in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Man-God, Christ Jesus, living, whole, entire flesh
and blood, body and soul, humanity and divinity, is as truly present under the appearances of
bread and wine as He was truly present on the cross on Calvary. We have therefore demonstrated
the fact of the real presence. This fact is a denned article of faith. But the dogma of the Holy
Eucharist deals not only with the fact, but also with the mode or manner of effecting Christ s
presence. Not the manner in which He is present, but the manner in which He is made to be
present. Under pain of heresy we are bound to believe not only that Christ is really present under
the accidents of bread and wine, but also that the real presence is effected by transubstantiation.
We must carefully distinguish between the modus quo – the manner by which Christ’s Body is
made to be present, the mode of change and the modus in quo, the manner in which it is present,
the mode of existence. What the latter may be the Church has not defined. But it is clear that in
the Eucharist Christ s living Body exists in a quasi-spiritual fashion, impervious to the senses.
You cannot see, or hear, or touch, or taste, or smell it.
It concerns what is changed (the substance of the bread and wine),
not how the change is brought about.
The teaching of the Church is that the substance of the bread and the wine change in their deepest
reality and become the Body and Blood of Christ, although the accidents (or appearances) of
bread and wine remain. So, the elements have the same texture, taste and colour as before, but
their deepest reality is only Christ. The theologians spoke of the Son as being of the same
“substance” (consubstantialis) as the Father. The corresponding Greek term is “οὐσία” the Son
is said to be “ὁμοούσιος” with the Father and the change of the bread and wine into the body and
blood of Christ is called “μετουσίωσις”. In other words, the deepest being of the bread and wine
changes substantially, but their outward appearances remain unchanged. The Eucharist still tastes
like bread, looks like bread, crumbles like bread, or looks and tastes like wine, but is no longer
so. The Eucharist simply is Christ. This change is not just accidental, as when a child becomes
an adult; rather, just as the food a person eats becomes a part of his substance to fuel his physical
being, so the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of Christ which nourishes
spiritually. However, as St. Augustine says, unlike other food, which nourishes by becoming
physically part of the one who eats, the Eucharist instead changes those who receive it, so that
they become a part of this heavenly food, the Body of Christ.
The terms substance and accident were used in the solemn definition of transubstantiation of
Lateran Council IV in 1215. The Church saw this doctrine as the clearest way that human reason
has discovered to explain how the substances of the elements can change, while external
accidents can remain the same.
 1. REAL PRESENCE – TRANSUBSTANTATION
The Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican II speaks of various modes of the presence of Christ
in the Liturgy: in the community, in the Word proclaimed, in the priest acting in the very person
of Jesus Christ, in the Eucharistic species and in the Sacraments (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7).
This presence is called real to underscore that the sacrifice is not just symbolic. The Eucharist is
not only a symbol. The bread and wine begin as symbols of the Lord’s Body and Blood and then
become His very Body and Blood! At Mass, Christ’s sacramental presence is intended, not as an
end in itself, but so that His people might “take and eat,” “take and drink,” and in doing so be
transformed so as to become more fully the mystical Body of Christ, the Church.
40 This doctrine, found in the New Testament and in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church,
may have been formalized differently in various eras, but the doctrine has not changed. St.
Ignatius of Antioch, said “...the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the Cup, His blood” (Letter to the
Smyrnaeans 7: 1). St. Justin Martyr said “Not as common bread and common drink do we receive
these [elements]; but in like manner as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, having been made flesh by the
Word of God, had both flesh and blood... so likewise ... the food which is blessed by the prayer
of His word ...and from which our flesh and blood...are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that
Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 66). The last word belongs to St. Augustine: “that
bread you see on the altar... is the Body of Christ. That chalice... is the Blood of Christ” (Sermon
227).
In the West, from the time of Tertullian, the accent was put on the real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. In the 5th century under the influence of the School of Antioch represented, among
others, by Theodoret of Cyprus († between 457 and 466) a theory appeared about the coexistence
of bread and body and the wine and blood of the Lord, which will later be called
consubstantiation. This theory was based on the analogy between the mystery of the incarnation
and the transformation of the Eucharistic gifts: for as the eternal Word of God has incarnated in
the Body, so also the Body of Christ impersonates the Eucharistic bread. In this way, the
substance of bread and the substance of the Body combine in a mystical way with the similarity
of the merging of the two natures in Christ. The Church Fathers tried to find ways to express the
extraordinary change that takes place in the Eucharist. They coined terms with the prefix trans-,
(e.g. “transelementation”, transfiguration), which implies a process or a change from one thing
to another. Other fourth-century Christian writers say that in the Eucharist there occurs a
“change”, “transformation”, “transposing”, “alteration” of the bread into the body of Christ.
→ Council (3) of Ephesus (431), Anathematisim XI:
“If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and belongs to the Word
from God the Father, but maintains that it belongs to another besides him, united with him
in dignity or as enjoying a mere divine indwelling, and is not rather life-giving, as we said,
since it became the flesh belonging to the Word who has power to bring all things to life,
let him be anathema.”

Theological controversies
The first theological problems concerning the understanding of the presence of Christ in the
sacrament of the Eucharist appeared in Western Christianity in the ninth century. Then two
French monks, Paschasius Radbertus († 865) and Ratramnus († 868 or 875) presented their
different views on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Paschasius Radbertus drew particular
attention to the relationship of the resurrected Christ with his presence in the Eucharist. In this
way, he identified the historical body of Christ with the Eucharistic body, so that the difference
between them would only depend on the mode of being. Thus, the Body of Christ is realistically
present in the Eucharist, though in a spiritual way. In turn, Ratramnus, in the name of the
resurrection of Christ, denied the presence of the real Body in the Eucharist and thus emphasized
 the symbolic presence of Christ in this sacrament. From these two views, the opinion presented
by Paschasius Radbertus won.
Another crisis in the West was caused by the Berenrius of Tours (about 1000-1088), which
undermined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, claiming that bread and wine are only
spiritually transformed. However, at the Synod of Rome (1079) Berengarius officially canceled
his mistakes and confessed that:
“...the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are after consecration not only a
sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the senses
not only sacramentally but in truth are taken and broken by the hands of the priests and
41 crushed by the teeth of the faithful.” (Selection from his 1059 confession)
At the Roman Council VI, 1079, Berengarius of Tours affirmed (Oath of Berengar):
“I, Berengarius, believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine that are
placed on the altar are through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of our
Redeemer substantially changed into the true and proper life-giving flesh and blood of
Jesus Christ our Lord; and that after the consecration is the true body of Christ, which was
born of the Virgin, as an offering for the salvation of the world hung on the cross, and sits
at the right hand of the Father; and (is) the true blood of Christ which flowed from his side;
not only through the sign and power of the sacrament but in his proper nature and true
substance; as it is set down in this summary and as I read it and you understand it. Thus, I
believe, and I will not teach any more against this faith. So, help me God and this holy
Gospel of God.”
From the 11th century, as a reaction to the exaggerated symbolism of Berengarius of Tours, the
study of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist by individual theologians who most often
interpreted it in terms of Aristotelian philosophy was developed and refined. Piotr Lombard
(about 1095-1160) had great merits in this regard, and later Saint. Thomas Aquinas. On the other
hand, due to the application of the scholastic method, they succumbed to the tendencies of
“reification” of the theology of the Eucharist. That is why they understood the presence of Christ
in the Eucharist in ontical and metaphysical terms.
→ In a discussion of the form of consecration (the word now used to refer to the blessing given
by Jesus), Pope Innocent III states in letter Cum Marthae circa to John, former bishop of Lyon
(1202):
“For the species of bread and wine is perceived there, and the truth of the body and blood
of Christ is believed and the power of unity and of love.... The form is of the bread and
wine; the truth, of the flesh and blood...”
→ Pope Innocent III prescribed the profession of faith to the Waldensians (1208):
“We, with a sincere heart, firmly and unhesitatingly believe and loyally affirm that in the
Sacrament of the Eucharist those things which before the consecration are bread and wine,
are the true body and true blood of Our Lord Jesus after the consecration. And of the
sacrifice, we believe, that a good Priest does nothing more than this and a bad Priest does
nothing less, because it is not by the merit of the one consecrating that the sacrifice is
accomplished, but by the word of the Creator and by the power of the Holy Spirit…”
→ The Fourth Lateran General Council of the Lateran (1215) – The agenda laid out in Vineam
domini Sabaoth included reform of the Church, the stamping out of heresy, establishing peace
and liberty, and calling for a new crusade. During this council, the doctrine of transubstantiation
– a Church doctrine which describes the method by which the bread and blood offered in the
sacrament of the Eucharist becomes the actual blood and body of Christ – was infallibly defined.
The scholarly consensus is that the constitutions were drafted by Innocent III himself. Canon 1:
“There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no
salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and
 blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine;
the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine
into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has
received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly
ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to
the Apostles and their successors.” (Canon 1)
In all churches the Eucharist and the chrism must be kept under lock and. key. Those who
neglect to do this, are to be suspended:
“We decree that in all churches the chrism and the Eucharist be kept in properly protected
42 places provided with locks and keys, that they may not be reached by rash and indiscreet
persons and used for impious and blasphemous purposes. But if he to whom such
guardianship pertains should leave them unprotected, let him be suspended from office for
a period of three months. And if through his negligence an execrable deed should result,
let him be punished more severely.” (Canon 20)
Everyone who has attained the age of reason is bound to confess his sins at least once a
year to his own parish pastor with his permission to another, and to receive the Eucharist
at least at Easter. A priest who reveals a sin confided to him in confession is to be deposed
and relegated to a monastery for the remainder of his life:
“All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully
confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best
of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament
of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good
reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church
(excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death. seek and obtain
permission from his own (parish) priest, since otherwise he (the other priest) cannot loose
or bind him.” (Canon 21).
The Summa Theologiae (St. Thomas Aquin, 1270) is considered within the Roman Catholic
Church to be the paramount philosophical expression of its theology, and as such offers a clear
discussion of the Eucharist:
“[F]or Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally. Consequently, when
Christ was going to leave His disciples in His proper species, He left Himself with them
under the sacramental species...” (III 73 5).
“The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by
sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on
Luke 22:19: 'This is My body which shall be delivered up for you,' Cyril says: 'Doubt not
whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the
Truth, He lieth not.' Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the
sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion,
according to Hebrews 10:1: 'For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not
the very image of the things'” (III 75 1).
“[S]ince Christ's true body is in this sacrament, and since it does not begin to be there by
local motion, nor is it contained therein as in a place, as is evident from what was stated
above (III 75 1 ad 2), it must be said then that it begins to be there by conversion of the
substance of bread into itself” (III 75 4).
But, again, Thomas held that the final cause was the “cause of all causes” and so held priority
over the material and formal causes (which had to do with substance) of which he was speaking.
To be faithful to Thomas’ theology, then, the purpose of the bread should never be overlooked in
the effort to find meaning.
 → The General Council of Constance, Sentence condemning various articles of John Wyclif
(session VIII, 4 May 1415):
“In our times, however, that old and jealous foe has stirred up new conflicts so that the
approved ones of this age may be made manifest. Their leader and prince was that pseudo-
christian John Wyclif. He stubbornly asserted and taught many articles against the christian
religion and the catholic faith while he was alive. We have decided that (forty-five) of the
articles should be set out on this page as follows.
1. The material substance of bread, and similarly the material substance of wine, remain in
the sacrament of the altar.
43 2. The accidents of bread do not remain without their subject in the said sacrament.
3. Christ is not identically and really present in the said sacrament in his own bodily
persona.
5. That Christ instituted the mass has no basis in the gospel.”
→ The General Council of Constance, Decree on Communion under the species of bread alone
(session XIII, 15 June1415):
“In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen.
Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the Christian
people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread
and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but
also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after
a meal…(..) Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid
various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to
introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by
the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under
both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For
it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood
of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine.”
This is the doctrine of concomitance (concomitantia), or co-presence in the consecrated host of
the Blood of Christ, and in the consecrated wine of his body, and also the practice of giving
communion under one kind for the faithful and non-celebrated priests. This custom began to
spread in the 13th century, including influenced by the views of the then theologians Alexander
of Hales and Thomas Aquinas.
→ General Council of Florence, Decree for the Greeks (1439):
“Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread,
and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the
custom of his western or eastern church.”
→ General Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians (1439):
“The third is the sacrament of the eucharist. Its matter is wheat bread and wine from the
vine, to which a very little water is added before the consecration. Water is added thus
because it is believed, in accordance with the testimony of holy fathers and doctors of the
church manifested long ago in disputation, that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament
in wine mixed with water, and because it befits the representation of the Lord's passion.
For the blessed pope Alexander, fifth after blessed Peter, says: In the oblations of the
sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of masses, only bread and
wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. There should not be offered in the
chalice of the Lord either wine only or water only but both mixed together, because both
blood and water are said to have flowed from Christ's side’; also because it is fitting to
signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ.
For, water signifies the people according to those words of the Apocalypse: many waters,
 many peoples. And Pope Julius, second after blessed Silvester, said: The chalice of the
Lord, by a precept of the canons, should be offered mixed of wine and water, because we
see that the people is understood in the water and the blood of Christ is manifested in the
wine; hence when wine and water are mingled in the chalice, the people are made one with
Christ and the mass of the faithful are linked and joined together with him in whom they
believe. Since, therefore, both the holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles
Peter and Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all
sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very
beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other
44 region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We decree, therefore,
that the Armenians should conform themselves with the whole Christian world and that
their priests shall mix a little water with the wine in the oblation of the chalice, as has been
said. The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this
sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue
of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance
of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under
the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as
well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ. The effect of this
sacrament, which is produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of
him or her with Christ. Since by grace a person is incorporated in Christ and is united with
his members, the consequence is that grace is increased by this sacrament in those who
receive it worthily, and that every effect that material food and drink produce for corporal
life – sustaining, increasing, repairing and delighting – this sacrament works for spiritual
life.”
→ General Council of Florence, Bull of union with the Copts (1442):
“However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in
respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, relying on the teaching and
authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration
of the Lord's body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text.
It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And
of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant,
which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.
Whether the wheat bread, in which the sacrament is confected, has been baked on the same
day or earlier is of no importance whatever. For, provided the substance of bread remains,
there should be no doubt at all that after the aforesaid words of consecration of the body
have been pronounced by a priest with the intention of consecrating, immediately it is
changed in substance into the true body of Christ.”
In the 16th century, in the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a
matter of much controversy. Martin Luther believed in a “Real Presence” of Christ in the
Eucharist, as Lutherans do today. However, he also believed that the presence is not permanent,
but is only a passing presence at the Consecration and Communion. Luther held that: “It is not
the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present
at the Eucharist”. In his On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (published on 6 October
1520) Luther wrote:
“Therefore, it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand "bread" to
mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and "wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of
wine." Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents?
Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate
the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning.
 Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which
time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a
monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became
rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other
things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten
nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions,
which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.”
In his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper he wrote:
“Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, “This is my body”, even though
45 bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here,
too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental
union", because Christ's body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a
natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different
union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but
it is also assuredly a sacramental union.”
What Luther thus called a “sacramental union” is often erroneously called consubstantiation by
non-Lutherans. In On the Babylonian Captivity, Luther upheld belief in the Real Presence of
Jesus and, in his 1523 treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament, defended adoration of the body
and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
Because most reformers (except for Martin Luther and his followers) completely rejected the
doctrine of the real presence of Christ, the Council of Trent (1551) officiated:
“In the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist are contained the real and substantial (vere,
realiter et substantialiter) body and blood with the soul and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and therefore all Christ.”
In the above formulation, the word “true” (vere) was especially directed against the teaching of
Ulrich Zwingli, according to which Christ is only present in the Eucharist symbolically. The
formulation of “actually” (realiter) was a reaction, among others, on the opinion of Johann
Oekolampadius, a supporter of Calvinist theology. He maintained that bread remains what he
was and I will become only a sign or a sign of the Body of Christ for the participants of the
Eucharist. The word “substantial” (substantialiter) was directed against the theology of John
Calvin, according to which Christ is present in the Eucharist only by his power or through the
Holy Spirit, or spiritualiter.
Huldryc Zwingli taught that the sacrament is purely symbolic and memorial in character, arguing
that this was the meaning of Jesus' instruction: “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11, 23-
26).
In the face of various Protestant positions on the Eucharist, the Council of Trent solemnly defined
this doctrine, as Catholic dogma (13th session ending 11 October 1551):
By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole
substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the
whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. This change the holy
Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (canon 1376).
The Council declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who:
“…denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really,
and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or
in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the
Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole
substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood
 - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic
Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1374) cites the Council of Trent also in regard to
the mode of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist: “The mode of Christ’s presence under
the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as the perfection
of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,
73, 3c.) In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the
soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and
substantially contained.” (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651) “This presence is called 'real' - by
46 which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but
because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which
Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (Paul VI, MF 39).”
The 39 articles of 1563, the Church of England declared: “Transubstantiation (or the change of
the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but
is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath
given occasion to many superstitions; and made Mass illegal.”
Different theories about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist
→ Metousiosis
In the Greek Orthodox Church, the doctrine has been discussed under the term of metousiosis,
coined as a direct loan-translation of transubstantiatio in the 17th century. In Eastern Orthodoxy
in general, the Sacred Mystery (Sacrament) of the Eucharist is more commonly discussed using
alternative terms such as “trans-elementation” (μεταστοιχείωσις, metastoicheiosis), “re-
ordination” (μεταρρύθμισις, metarrhythmisis), or simply “change” (μεταβολή, metabole).
As the Disputation of the Holy Sacrament took place in the Western Church after the Great
Schism, the Eastern Churches remained largely unaffected by it. The debate on the nature of
“transubstantiation” in Greek Orthodoxy begins in the 17th century, with Cyril Lucaris, whose
The Eastern Confession of the Orthodox Faith was published in Latin in 1629. The Greek term
metousiosis (μετουσίωσις) is first used as the translation of Latin transubstantiatio in the Greek
edition of the work, published in 1633.
The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the
Assyrian Church of the East, agree that in a valid Divine Liturgy bread and wine truly and actually
become the body and blood of Christ. In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to start during
the Liturgy of Preparation and be completed during the epiclesis. However, there are official
church documents that speak of a “change” (in Greek μεταβολή) or “metousiosis” (μετουσίωσις)
of the bread and wine. “Μετ-ουσί-ωσις” (met-ousi-osis) is the Greek word used to represent the
Latin word “trans-substanti-atio”, as Greek “μετα-μόρφ-ωσις” (meta-morph-osis) corresponds
to Latin “trans-figur-atio”. Examples of official documents of the Eastern Orthodox Church that
use the term “μετουσίωσις” or “transubstantiation” are the Longer Catechism of The Orthodox,
Catholic, Eastern Church and the declaration by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of
1672:
“In the celebration of [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not
present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor
by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation,
so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically,
as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly
and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted,
transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which
was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried,
rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again
 in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood
Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.”
It should be noted, that the way in which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ
has never been dogmatically defined by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, St Theodore
the Studite writes in his treatise On the Holy Icons: “for we confess that the faithful receive the
very body and blood of Christ, according to the voice of God himself.”
This was a refutation of the iconoclasts, who insisted that the eucharist was the only true icon of
Christ. Thus, it can be argued that by being part of the dogmatic “horos” against the iconoclast
heresy, the teaching on the “real presence” of Christ in the eucharist is indeed a dogma of the
47 Eastern Orthodox Church.
→ Consubstantiation
In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, why has “one in being with the Father” been changed
to “consubstantial with the Father?”
The new translation is more in keeping with the ancient Latin text of the Creed and a more
accurate translation. The bishops at the Council of Nicea (325), in order to ensure that Jesus was
professed as the eternal Son of God, equal to the Father, stated that he is “the Son of God, begotten
from the Father, the only-begotten, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light
from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, the same substance (homoousion) with
the Father...” The Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381), which is professed at all Sunday
Masses and Solemnities within the Catholic Church, similarly stated: “We believe in one Lord
Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from
Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousion) with the
Father.” When these two ancient creeds were translated into Latin, the term “homoousion” was
rendered as “consubstantialem”, that is, “the same substance of the Father.”
It holds that during the sacrament of Eucharist , the substance of the body and blood of Christ are
present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. It was part of the
doctrines of Lollardy and considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.
The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of
transubstantiation. While some Lutherans use the term “consubstantiation” to describe their
doctrine, many reject it as not accurately reflecting the eucharistic doctrine of Martin Luther, the
sacramental union. They reject the concept of consubstantiation because it replaces what they
believe to be the biblical doctrine with a philosophical construct and because it implies that the
body and blood are physically present in the same way as the bread and wine, rather than being
present in an “illocal”, supernatural way.
In England in the late 14th century, there was a political and religious movement known as
Lollardy. Among much broader goals, the Lollards affirmed a form of consubstantiation – that
the Eucharist remained physically bread and wine, while becoming spiritually the body and blood
of Christ. Lollardy survived up until the time of the English Reformation.
→ Sacramental union
Sacramental union (Latin: unio sacramentalis; Luther’s German: Sacramentliche Einigkeit;
German: sakramentalische Vereinigung) is the Lutheran theological doctrine of the Real
Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Christian Eucharist.
The sacramental union is distinguished from the other “unions” in theology like the “personal
union” of the two natures in Jesus Christ, the “mystical union” of Christ and his Church, and the
“natural union” in the human person of body and soul. It is seen as similar to the personal union
in the analogue of the uniting of the two perfect natures in the person of Jesus Christ in which
both natures remain distinct: the integrity of the bread and wine remain though united with the
body and the blood of Christ. In the sacramental union the consecrated bread is united with the
body of Christ and the consecrated wine is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ’s
 original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these “elements” – the
consecrated bread and wine – really eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well.
Lutherans maintain that what they believe to be the biblical doctrine of the manducatio
indignorum (“eating of the unworthy”) supports this doctrine as well as any other doctrine
affirming the Real Presence. The manducatio indignorum is the contention that even unbelievers
eating and drinking in the Eucharist really eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. This view
was put forward by Martin Luther in his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper:
“Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body," even though
bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here,
48 too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental
union," because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a
natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different
union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but
it is also assuredly a sacramental union.”
It is asserted in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 and in the Formula of Concord. The Formula of
Concord couples the term with the circumlocution (“in, with, and under the forms of bread and
wine”) used among Lutherans to further define their view:
“For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the
Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under
the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are
employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and
the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ
indicated.”
→ Impanation
Impanation (Latin: impanatio, “embodied in bread”) is a high medieval theory of the real
presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread of the Eucharist that does not imply
a change in the substance of either the bread or the body. Impanation is the theory of a real
presence, first taught by the heresiarch Berengarius in the eleventh century and condemned as
heretical in the Sixth Council of Rome in 1079. It was revived in the sixteenth century by the
German heretics, Osiander and his followers. This doctrine, apparently patterned after Christ’s
Incarnation (God is made flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ) – John 1,14 – is the assertion that
“God is made bread” in the Eucharist; that, just as in the incarnation God the Son assumed the
nature of man and became man, so that the propositions are true, God is Man, Man is God: in
like manner, in the Holy Eucharist, God the Son assumed the nature of bread and became bread,
and assumed the nature of wine and became wine; so that the propositions are true, God is Bread,
Bread is God; God is Wine, Wine is God. According to this teaching, there is in Christ only one
person the second Person of the Blessed Trinity but four natures: the nature of God, the nature of
man, the nature of bread, the nature of wine; so that Christ can say: I am God; I am Man; I am
Bread; I am Wine. On this theory, when Jesus said, “this is My Body”, He meant, “this bread, as
bread, is My Body”. This doctrine, however, explains nothing; for one nature of Christ cannot be
predicated of another. It is false to say that the Divine nature of Christ is His human nature.
Consequently, even if our Lord had assumed, let us say, bread as a third nature, this nature of
bread could be predicated neither of His Divine nor of His human nature. Thus, even if
impanation were true, the proposition, this bread, as bread, is My Body that is, this bread, as
bread, is My human nature would be utterly false.
→ Pneumatic presence
“Real spiritual presence”, also called “pneumatic presence”, holds that not only the Spirit of
Christ, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence “real”), are received by the
sovereign, mysterious, and miraculous power of the Holy Spirit (hence “spiritual”), but only by
 those partakers who have faith. This view approaches the “pious silence” view in its
unwillingness to specify how the Holy Spirit makes Christ present, but positively excludes not
just symbolism but also trans- and con-substantiation. It is also known as the “mystical presence”
view and is held by some Low Church Reformed Anglicans. This understanding is often called
“receptionism”. Some argue that this view can be seen as being suggested – though not clearly –
by the “invocation” of the Anglican Rite as found in the American Book of Common Prayer:
“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty
goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts
and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour
49 Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers
of his most blessed body and blood.”
→ Memorialism
The bread and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in partaking of the
elements the believer commemorates the sacrificial death of Christ. Christ is not present in the
sacrament, except in the minds and hearts of the communicants. This view is also known as
“memorialism” and “zwinglianism” after Huldrych Zwingli and is held by several Protestant and
Latter-day Saint denominations, including most Baptists.
→ Suspension
The partaking of the bread and wine was not intended to be a perpetual ordinance or was not to
be taken as a religious rite or ceremony (also known as adeipnonism, meaning “no supper” or
“no meal”). This is the view of Quakers and the Salvation Army and others.
→ Trans-signification
Transignification is an idea originating from the attempts of Roman Catholic theologians,
especially Edward Schillebeeckx, to better understand the mystery of the real presence of Christ
at Mass in light of a new philosophy of the nature of reality that is more in line with contemporary
physics.
Transignification suggests that although Christ’s body and blood are not physically present in the
Eucharist, they are really and objectively so, as the elements take on, at the consecration, the real
significance of Christ's body and blood which thus become sacramentally present. It is thus
contrasted not only to belief in a physical or chemical change in the elements, but also to the
doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that there is a change only of the underlying reality, but
not of anything that concerns physics or chemistry.
The concept of transignification is based on the thought that there are two kinds of presence, local
and personal. Jesus is personally, but not locally, present at the Mass. One can be locally present,
as when riding on a bus, but one’s thoughts can be far away, making one personally not present.
The concept draws from ideas in the linguistic fields of structuralism, developed by Ferdinand
de Saussure and that of semiotics to elaborate on the process of the Eucharist. These fields
consider all meaningful signs as being divided into two complementary but indivisible parts,
those of signifier and signified, both of which are determined by their psychological reality. In
this framework, the Eucharistic Sacrament of the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood appearing
under the respective accidents of bread and wine would rather be interpreted as the signified
(meaningful concept) of Christ’s Body and Blood appearing under the signifiers (sensible,
perceived impressions) of bread and wine.
One of the reasons for this shift was an attempt to shed light on the somewhat obscure nature of
the concept “substance”, and to modernize and make more meaningful what is actually signified
by the term substance.
 → Trans-finalisation
Trans-finalisation (Latin trans-, so as “to change” + finis, “end”) – contemporary theory
proposed by some Catholic theologians, that tries to explain the mystery of the presence of Christ
in the Eucharist, given that bread and wine during the celebration change your goal. To
proponents of this theory include: O’Collins and E. G. Farrugia. The idea of trans-finalization it
is based on the concept of a real symbol, which used the Eastern Fathers in the early centuries of
Christianity. This concept is related to the influence of the Platonic ideas and hierarchical
thinking in the teaching of salvation and redemption. Expresses the relationship between
reflection and inspiration. The essence of the image is to point to the original. One reality is the
50 symbol of another, higher-order and it is in this sense that the reality of higher degree expresses
itself in fact downstream, is present in her and through her work, although in a way weakened. If
the Paschal considered the archetype, the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord is his
symbol in the sense that we are celebrating the Eucharist really in what Jesus Christ has done.
The Greek fathers used the theology of the Eucharist and to present the images actually notice it,
though a hidden presence of Christ.
Thomas Aquinas also believed that the presence of the Eucharist is possible thanks to the new,
the Mystic relation of the bread and wine to body and blood of Christ. They become embodying
the character personal presence. The Eucharist makes present Christ without reproduction of It,
movement, change. Characters of the bread and wine, although there are no change are starting
to be with another purposefulness, in a different way. Bread and wine are taken out of the Earth
and the existence and make it as signs that we are in the presence of the body and blood of Christ.
The attempt by some twentieth-century Catholic theologians to present the Eucharistic change as
an alteration of significance (transsignificatio/transfinalisatio rather than transubstantiatio) was
rejected by Pope Paul VI in his 1965 encyclical letter Mysterium fidei In his 1968 Credo of the
People of God, he reiterated that any theological explanation of the doctrine must hold to the
twofold claim that, after the consecration, 1) Christ's body and blood are really present; and 2)
bread and wine are really absent; and this presence and absence is real and not merely something
in the mind of the believer. In 2003, Pope John Paul II in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia
(15) reminded us of the ongoing updating of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

The consecration
One mark of controversy between West and East is whether it is the words of Institution (the
Consecration formulas) or the Epiclesis, the prayer that calls down the Holy Spirit, which changes
the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The West holds that this is
accomplished by the Institution narrative and the East believes it is accomplished by the
Epiclesis. The Epiclesis was originally a prayer calling on the Spirit to unify the Church, which
then developed to become the explicit invocation of the Spirit to consecrate the elements. This is
seen in the ancient Eucharistic Prayers of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom where the Epiclesis
comes after the words of Consecration. The West, however, focused on Christ’s words as quoted
by St. Justin Martyr and St. Ambrose, both of whom quite explicitly taught that the Word (Christ)
acts through the words of the Consecration and that belief in the change is demonstrated by
adoring the host and the chalice as they are held up by the priest immediately afterwards. After
1054, the hardening of the schism between East and West saw the East saying that it was only
through the Epiclesis that the elements changed and the West stressing only the words. Pope
Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis (13) reiterates that transubstantiation is the action of the
Holy Spirit working through the words of Christ in the canon and in the Epiclesis, or invocation
of the Spirit. He points out that the change of the elements is oriented toward individual
transformation, and as the Body of Christ. In receiving the sacramental Body of Christ, one
becomes more the mystical Body of Christ, the Church. All the new Eucharistic prayers of the
 Latin rite have two epiclesis: one calls down the Spirit to change the elements, and one asks that
the Spirit draw together in unity all who have fed on the Body of the Lord, to make them one in
the Church. Interestingly, in the ancient canon of Addai and Mari used by the Assyrian Church
of the East, there are no explicit words of Institution.

2. EUCHARIST AS SACRIFICE
The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal. The first Christians knew that
it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings.
The OT is replete with instances of sacrifices offered to God. Animals, birds and crops were
51 offered to God for various intentions; for worship (Gen 4: 2-5), for atonement of sin (Heb 9:22),
to seal a covenant (Exod 24: 4-8) and to strengthen the bond between God and the devotees. In
this way sacrifice became a means to relate to God for personal and communitarian salvation.
There were also moments in the life of the Israelite community when animal sacrifices became
abominable to God especially when offered by devotees who never bothered to do the will of
God in their personal and social lives and took the cover of sacrifices to appease God and assure
salvation for themselves. This attitude led to cultic ritualism which was heavily criticised by
prophets especially Isaiah, Hosea and Amos (Isa 1:2-31; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-24). Outward
sacrifices could therefore not be an excuse for inner disobedience. Sacrifices to God had to be
pure in both ways interior and exterior. Only then would it be pleasing to God and assure one the
salvation that one sought.
The sacrifice of Jesus was seen as transcending the sacrifices of the OT. In the OT the sacrifices
were repeated but the sacrifice of Jesus was once and for all (Heb 10:1-10). The OT sacrifices
were animal sacrifices but the sacrifice of Jesus was of himself; a self-offering. The benefit of
the OT sacrifices also included the priest but the sacrifice of Jesus benefited him in no way; it
was for the salvation of others.
On the Cross, Jesus offered Himself as a holocaust, a total sacrifice, to the Father. Adam of old
ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, sinning by his disobedience to God and in his
obedience to Eve, who was seduced by the serpent (Gen. 3: 6). Jesus is the new Adam who obeys
the Father “even to death on a Cross” (Phil 2: 8). Christ hanging on the tree of the Cross, undoes
Adam’s disobedience, while Mary, the new Eve, stands underneath the Cross offering herself
with her Son. This bloody sacrifice was offered to the Father by His Son, the great high priest,
“once to take away the sins of many” (Heb 9: 28). This was a favourite quotation of the
Reformers, who saw the Eucharist as nothing more than a memory of a past event. They thought
that Catholic teaching saw each Mass as an attempt to add to the one, all sufficient and infinite
sacrifice of the all-perfect Man-God. Such teaching would be blasphemy if it were the case, but
it is not, and this idea is neither the Catholic understanding nor doctrine. Rather, the Church
“commemorates Christ’s Passover and it is made present: the sacrifice of Christ offered on the
Cross... remains ever present” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1364).
The salvific motif is later seen by the Apostles as the underlying motif of Jesus’ death. It was the
Last Supper. At the Last Supper Jesus celebrates the Passover meal with his disciples, giving his
own interpretation of that meal. Jesus was placing himself as the Passover lamb who had to be
sacrificed for the salvation of all. In 1Cor 5: 6-7, Paul alludes to the Passover feast calling Christ
the Paschal lamb that was sacrificed. Jesus understands this sacrifice not only as a one-way
process from God to humans but also vice versa because he makes us participate in that sacrifice
by asking his Apostles (and the future Church that would come into existence), to eat the bread
and drink the wine as though they were his body and blood (Mk 14: 22-25; Mt 26: 26-29; Lk 22:
14-23; 1Cor 11: 23-26).
In this way Jesus makes the future Church (the people of the new Covenant), participate in his
sacrifice of redemption. It is this participation that brings salvation and wholeness to the
 participants. This motif of sacrifice became central to the Eucharist especially during the times
of the persecutions of the early Christians. The self-sacrifice of Martyrs, right from the first Pope,
Peter, down through the centuries, was and is venerated by a kiss of the altar (the centre of which
is supposed to contain the remains of the Martyrs), by the main Celebrant (and Concelebrants) of
the Eucharist. The Fathers of the Church, living in varied contexts, gave different perspectives to
this sacrificial motif of the mass.
We know the famous words of St. Ignatius of Antioch: “I am the wheat of God, when I am ground
may I be found pure bread” (Rom 4). Eusebio of Caesarea calls the Eucharist the fulfilment of
the past prophecies, as a sacrifice offered in a new way according to the law of the New Covenant.
52 Gregory I Pope and Doctor of the Church gave a lot of importance to the Eucharist as sacrifice.
The sacrificial vocabulary – sacrificium, oblatio, immolatio, victima, hostia, etc. were words
extensively used by him.
Because it was not contested in his day, St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae is able to
settle the question of the Mass as a sacrifice in one brief statement (ST III, q. 83, a. 4). St. Thomas
sees Christ offered up on the Cross historically, and that sacrifice is capable of bringing salvation.
In the Mass, that same sacrifice is offered in memory of His death. It is not simply a psychological
remembrance, but a living memorial as made clear by the collect St. Thomas quotes: “Whenever
the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is enacted.” (see
CCC, 1364 and Lumen Gentium, 3).
St. Thomas sees Christ as the great high priest, immolating Himself as the victim, in each sacrifice
of the Mass, as He did on the Cross. The Council of Trent taught that in the Mass “the same
Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross is contained and
offered in an unbloody manner.” Thomists maintain that the sacrifice of the Cross and that of the
Mass are specifically and numerically the same; only the manner of offering is different. St.
Thomas and the Council of Trent simply hand on the Catholic tradition, as founded on the witness
of the New Testament, the Didache, the Fathers of the Church, such as Sts. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Ambrose, Augustine, and many others. The Catechism teaches that “the sacrifice Christ offered
remains ever present” (CCC 1364) because the offering of the God-Man, Christ, is eternal.
However, the faithful need to be put in touch with this sacrifice, to enter in and offer themselves
with Christ, and so exercise their royal priesthood. Each person needs this sacrifice and its fruit
now, and so the Mass is offered daily. It is not celebrated for God’s sake, but for the sake of His
people.
According to him the passion of Christ is mystically imitated in the Eucharist because the
sacrifice of Christ is made present at every Eucharist celebrated by the Priest (Dialogue IV, 58:
PL 77, 425). We could go on giving examples on how the Fathers of Church laid prime
importance on the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist but for the lack of time we have to move on.
After Martin Luther’s attack on the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, many other Catholic
theologians like Thomas Cranmer, Robert Bellarmino, and others wrote in defence of the
sacrifice of the Eucharist. The Council of Trent finally upheld the mass as making present the
sacrifice of the Cross. It said, “It is one and the same victim here offering himself by the ministry
of his priests, who then offered himself on the Cross; it is only the manner of offering that is
different” (DS 1743)

Council of Trent
The most serious challenge to the Catholic faith in the Eucharist was the claim that the Mass is
not a real but merely a symbolic sacrifice. To defend this basic Eucharistic mystery, the Council
of Trent made a series of definitions. Originally drafted as negative anathemas, they may be
reduced to the following positive affirmation of faith.
• The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice which is offered to God.
 • By the words, “Do this in commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24), Christ
made the apostles priests. Moreover, He decreed that they and other priests should offer
His Body and Blood.
• The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or simply
a memorial of the sacrifice on the Cross. It is a propitiatory sacrifice which is offered for
the living and dead, for the remission of sins and punishment due to sin, as satisfaction for
sin and for other necessities.
• The Sacrifice of the Mass in no way detracts from the sacrifice which Christ offered on the
Cross (Council of Trent, Session XXII, September 17, 1562).
53
Volumes of teaching by the Church's magisterium have been written since the Council of Trent.
There has also been a remarkable development of doctrine in a deeper understanding of the Mass.
For our purpose, there are especially two questions that need to be briefly answered:
1) How is the Sacrifice of the Mass related to the sacrifice of the Cross?
2) How is the Mass a true sacrifice?

Relation of the Mass to Calvary.

In order to see how the Mass is related to Calvary, we must immediately distinguish between the
actual Redemption of the world and the communication of Christ's redemptive graces to a sinful
human race. On the Cross, Christ really redeemed the human family. He is the one true Mediator
between God and an estranged humanity. On the Cross, He merited all the graces that the world
would need to be reconciled with an offended God. When He died, the separation of His blood
from His body caused the separation of His human soul from the body, which caused His death.
He willed to die in the deepest sense of the word. He chose to die. In His own words, He laid
down His life for the salvation of a sinful mankind. But His physical death on Calvary was not
to be an automatic redemption of a sin-laden world. It would not exclude the need for us to
appropriate the merits He gained on the Cross; nor would it exclude the need for our voluntary
cooperation with the graces merited by the Saviour’s shedding of His blood. The key to seeing
the relation between Calvary and the Mass is the fact that the same identical Jesus Christ now
glorified is present on the altar at Mass as He was present in His mortal humanity on the Cross.
Since it is the same Jesus, we must say He continues in the Mass what He did on Calvary except
that now in the Mass, He is no longer mortal or capable of suffering in His physical person. On
Calvary He was, by His own choice, capable of suffering and dying. What He did then was to
gain the blessings of our redemption. What He does now in the Mass is apply these blessings to
the constant spiritual needs of a sinful, suffering humanity. Before we look more closely at the
Mass as a sacrifice of propitiation and petition, we should make plain that it is first and foremost,
a sacrifice of praise (adoration) and thanksgiving. No less than He did on Calvary, in the Mass
Jesus continues to offer Himself to the heavenly Father. Since the highest form of honour to God
is sacrifice, the Mass is a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice of praise and gratitude to God the
Father. But, whereas on Calvary, this sacrificial adoration was bloody, causing Christ’s physical
death by crucifixion, in the Mass the same Jesus is now sacrificing Himself in an un-bloody
manner because he is now glorified, immortal, and incapable of suffering or dying in His own
physical person. We now turn from the Mass as a sacrifice of adoration and thanks (referring to
God), to the Mass as a sacrifice of propitiation and petition (referring to us).
Notice we use two words, propititation and petition. They are not the same.
1. The Mass is the most powerful means we have to obtain propitiation for sin. This occurs
in different ways.
• Through the Mass, God’s mercy makes reparation for the want of divine love that we have
shown by committing sin.
 • Through the Mass, God’s mercy removes the guilt of repented venial sins and moves the
sinner estranged from Him to return to God.
• Through the Mass, God’s mercy remits more or less of the punishment still due on earth
to forgiven sins.
• Through the Mass, God’s mercy also remits more or less of the punishment which the souls
in purgatory have to undergo before entering heaven.
2. The Mass is a powerful means of petition to God for the graces that we and others need in
our pilgrimage through life.
• Graces are necessary for the mind to know what is God’s will and how it should be
54
fulfilled.
• Graces are necessary for the will to desire what pleases God, to choose what He wants us
to do, and to sustain our choice by loving Him above all things.
In both ways, as a means of propitiation and petition, the Mass is a sacrament. It confers the
graces needed from God’s mercy to expiate the sins of the past and the graces needed from God's
bounty to obtain His blessings for the future.
The Mass a True Sacrifice.
Since the first century of her existence, the Church has considered the Mass a sacrifice. The
earliest manual of the liturgy (before 90 A.D.) has this directive for the attendance of Sunday
Mass: “On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks. But first
confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarrelling with his brother
may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled” (Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles, 14).
Why is the Mass a true sacrifice? Because in the Mass the same Jesus Christ who offered Himself
on Calvary now offers Himself on the altar. The Priest is the same, the Victim is the same, and
the end or purpose is the same. The Priest is the same Jesus Christ whose sacred person the
ordained priest represents and, in whose Name, he offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Victim is
the same, namely the Saviour in His human nature, with His true Body and Blood, and His human
free will. Only the manner of offering is different. On the Cross, the sacrifice was bloody; in the
Mass it is unbloody because Christ is now in His glorified state. But the heart of sacrifice is the
voluntary, total offering of oneself to God. Christ makes this voluntary offering in every Mass,
signified by the separate consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the
Redeemer.
The end or purpose is the same, namely to give glory to God, to thank Him, to obtain His mercy,
and to ask Him for our needs. But, as we have seen, whereas on Calvary Christ merited our
salvation, it is mainly through the Mass that He now dispenses the riches of His saving grace.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-1965), which opened the doors of the Church to
a great renewal, did not allow this sacrificial aspect to loose its significance in the Eucharist. It
says, “…our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his body and blood…in order to
perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages, until he should come again”
(Sacrosanctum Concilium 47). It also sees the faithful as participating in the Eucharistic sacrifice
and along with the divine victim offer themselves to God (Lumen Gentium 11). The Church
therefore sees the mass as the inseparable sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross
is perpetuated (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1382).
Redemptionis Sacramentum stresses that, while the Eucharist is a sacred meal, it is primarily and
“pre-eminently” a sacrifice (38). Catholics believe that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same
sacrifice of the Cross, to which the Mass neither adds nor multiplies. As John Paul II states in
Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “It is a sacrifice in the strict sense” (13) and it applies to the people of
today the reconciliation which Christ won once and for all humankind in every age (12). Nor
does His sacrifice remain confined to the past, since “all that Christ is — all that He did and
 suffered for all men and women — participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times”
(11). What once happened in history is now made present in mystery.
I would like to quote him in full: “The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot
therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly
referring to the sacrifice of Calvary. By virtue of its close relationship to the sacrifice of Golgotha,
the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense, and not only in a general way, as if it were simply
a matter of Christ’s offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual food” (12 – 13). By now it
has become clear that the sacrificial aspect is the sine qua non of the Church’s understanding of
the Eucharist. Without this aspect any conception of the Eucharist would be incomplete. Secondly
55 it is taken for granted that Christ’s sacrifice is a means for the salvation of all. This is what makes
the Eucharist a means to salvation for all.

3a. EUCHARISTIC RESERVATION AND ADORATION

St. Francis of Assisi, who was never ordained a priest, had a great personal devotion to Christ in
the Blessed Sacrament. His first admonition on the Holy Eucharist could not have been more
precise.
Sacred Scripture tells us that the Father dwells in “light inaccessible” (I Timothy 6:16) and that
“God is spirit” (John 4:24) and St. John adds, “No one at any time has seen God” (John 1:18).
Because God is a spirit He can be seen only in spirit; “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh
profits nothing” (John 6:63). But God the Son is equal to the Father and so He too can be seen
only in the same way as the Father and the Holy Spirit. That is why all those were condemned
who saw our Lord Jesus Christ in His humanity but did not see or believe in spirit in His divinity,
that He was the true Son of God. In the same way now, all those are damned who see the
Sacrament of the Body of Christ which is consecrated on the altar in the form of bread and wine
by the words of our Lord in the hands of the priest, and do not see or believe in spirit and in God
that this is really the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It was this clear faith in Christ's presence in the Eucharist that sustained Francis during his
severest trials. It was this same faith which inspired a whole new tradition among religious
communities of women. Convents had the Sacrament reserved for adoration – apart from Mass
and Holy Communion.
In what way does devotion to the Eucharist take place outside Mass?
This occurs in many different and complementary ways:
First of all there is the Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, either individually or together
with the community. There are various ways in which this can be done: exposing the Most
Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance or in a ciborium, over an extended period of time (as is done,
for example, during the Forty Hours Adoration) or for a brief time. This devotion is recommended
by the Church to Pastors and the faithful as it is highly expressive of the link that exists between
the Celebration of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass (which in itself is the Church’s greatest act of
adoration) and his permanent presence in the consecrated Host.
Adoring Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist outside Mass is:
• A sign of our faith in the Mystery of the Eucharist.
• An act of thanksgiving to the Lord for this exceptional and wonderful gift.
• A way of making reparation for the many offenses that are perpetrated in
• the world.
Spending time in prayer before the Lord Jesus who is really present in the
Blessed Sacrament:
• Deepens our union with him and helps us to become holy.
• Increases our sense of awe and wonder at the great gift of the Real
• Presence of Christ.
 • Prepares us for a fruitful Celebration of the Eucharist.
• Helps us to have a greater sense of devotion and to reflect on this
• increasingly in our lives.
During this time of Adoration, the faithful may find it helpful to:
• Read a passage from Sacred Scripture which is an incomparable source of prayer.
• Sing hymns and read other suitable prayers.
• Become familiar with some of the prayers from the Liturgy of the Hours, that is to say the
“official” prayer of the Catholic Church which follows the various liturgical seasons
throughout the year.
• Remain in silent prayer and contemplation.
56

It is both important for us and very pleasing to the Lord if we make a simple visit to the Blessed
Sacrament reposed in the tabernacle: this brief encounter with Christ is inspired by our belief in
his presence. This is usually an occasion to spend some time in silent prayer.

Other ways of offering devotion to the Eucharist outside Mass are: Eucharistic Benediction
is usually the way in which Eucharistic processions and the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament
are concluded. The Eucharistic Benediction is performed by a priest or a deacon. Since the
blessing with the Most Holy Sacrament is not a form of Eucharistic devotion by itself, it must be
preceded by a brief period of exposition which allows for a period of prayer and silence. It is not
permitted to expose the Blessed Sacrament for the sole purpose of imparting a blessing.

Eucharistic Processions through the streets: these help the faithful to deepen their sense of being
God’s people who are called to journey with their Lord and to proclaim their faith in the God
who is with us and for us. This is especially the case when we are speaking about the Eucharistic
Procession par excellence, namely, the Corpus Christi Procession (the Feast of the Body and
Blood of the Lord). During these processions everything must be done to highlight and respect
the dignity and reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament: the way in which those who partake,
to the decoration of the streets, the floral arrangements, the hymns and the prayers must all be a
manifestation of praise and of faith in the Lord who is really present in the Most Blessed
Sacrament.

3b. ESCHATOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS

In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict teaches again that adoration of the Blessed Sacrament
is a foretaste of the beauty of the heavenly liturgy (66). In the Beatific Vision, God’s people will
simply “be” before Him; Eucharistic Adoration is a preparation for that reality. Heaven is
described in many ways, but perhaps the most beautiful is the glorious scene depicted in the Book
of Revelation (5: 6-14) where the Lamb of God, slain and yet standing is on His throne, is
accompanied by the four and twenty elders in adoration, laying their crowns before Him and
singing “Worthy is the Lamb... to receive... honour and glory...” (Rev 5: 12). Scott Hahn, in his
book The Supper of the Lamb, repeatedly makes the point that the Mass is the eschatological,
heavenly reality come to earth. Because the saints and angels worshiping the Lamb on His throne
in heaven are present at each Mass, the liturgy is a “cosmic” reality which joins heaven and earth.
Our Lady, the Apostles, the martyrs, confessors, virgins, pastors and all the saints who have gone
before us form the “great cloud of witnesses”, (Heb 12: 1) and join together with the Church in
praising the Lamb of God. Echoing Christ’s words at the Last Supper: “I tell you, I shall not drink
again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom“
(Matt 26: 29), the Church strains towards this fulfilment at each celebration of the Mass, crying
out “Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev 22: 20). As the Catechism teaches: “There is no surer pledge or
 clearer sign of this great hope in the new heavens and the new earth… than the Eucharist. Every
time this mystery is celebrated, “the work of our redemption is carried on” and we “break the one
bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes
us live forever in Jesus Christ” (1405).

3c. MINISTRY
The only minister of the Eucharist (someone who can consecrate the Eucharist) is a validly
ordained priest (bishop or presbyter). He acts in the person of Christ, representing Christ, who is
the Head of the Church, and also acts before God in the name of the Church. Several priests may
57 concelebrate the same offering of the Eucharist. Others, who are not priests, may act as
extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, distributing the sacrament to others, but not as
ministers of the Eucharist, ordinary or extraordinary.
“By reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop,
the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the
lay members of Christ's faithful during the celebration of Mass. In addition to the ordinary
ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an
extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover,
reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ's faithful may also be delegated
by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law, for one occasion or for a specified
time. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single
occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.”8
“Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion” are not to be called “Eucharistic ministers”, even
extraordinary ones, since that would imply that they, too, somehow transubstantiate the bread
and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
"Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when
there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical
celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion. They may also exercise this function
at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which
would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to
distribute Holy Communion”.9 “Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist
the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law”.10

Post-Synodal Exhortation on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and
Mission – Sacramentum Caritatis (March 13, 2007)

IV: The Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders

23. The intrinsic relationship between the Eucharist and the sacrament of Holy Orders clearly
emerges from Jesus' own words in the Upper Room: “Do this in memory of me” (Lk 22:19). On
the night before he died, Jesus instituted the Eucharist and at the same time established the
priesthood of the New Covenant. He is priest, victim and altar: the mediator between God the
Father and his people (cf. Heb 5:5-10), the victim of atonement (cf. 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) who offers
himself on the altar of the Cross. No one can say “this is my body” and “this is the cup of my
blood” except in the name and in the person of Christ, the one high priest of the new and eternal
Covenant (cf. Heb 8-9). Earlier meetings of the Synod of Bishops had considered the question of
the ordained priesthood, both with regard to the nature of the ministry and the formation of
candidates. Here, in the light of the discussion that took place during the last Synod, I consider it
8
Redemptionis Sacramentum, 154-155.
9
Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio, article 8.
10
Redemptionis Sacramentum, 88.
 important to recall several important points about the relationship between the sacrament of the
Eucharist and Holy Orders. First of all, we need to stress once again that the connection between
Holy Orders and the Eucharist is seen most clearly at Mass, when the Bishop or priest presides
in the person of Christ the Head.
The Church teaches that priestly ordination is the indispensable condition for the valid celebration
of the Eucharist. Indeed, “in the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself
who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, High Priest of the
redemptive sacrifice.”11 Certainly the ordained minister also acts “in the name of the whole
Church, when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the
58 eucharistic sacrifice.”12 As a result, priests should be conscious of the fact that in their ministry
they must never put themselves or their personal opinions in first place, but Jesus Christ. Any
attempt to make themselves the centre of the liturgical action contradicts their very identity as
priests. The priest is above all a servant of others, and he must continually work at being a sign
pointing to Christ, a docile instrument in the Lord's hands. This is seen particularly in his humility
in leading the liturgical assembly, in obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart,
and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own
personality. I encourage the clergy always to see their eucharistic ministry as a humble service
offered to Christ and his Church. The priesthood, as Saint Augustine said, is amoris officium, it
is the office of the good shepherd, who offers his life for his sheep (cf. Jn 10:14-15).
→ Efficacy of the rite – Ex opere operato – ministry
Eastern and Western eucharistic traditions generally agree with St. Augustine of Hippo in
teaching that the efficacy of the sacraments as a means of divine grace does not depend on the
worthiness of the priest or minister administering them. Augustine developed this concept in his
controversy with the Donatists.

3d. RECEVING THE EUCHARIST

“A person who is conscious of grave [mortal] sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of
the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no
opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of
perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.”13 In some
countries a custom has recently arisen whereby someone who for some reason, such as not being
a Catholic or not being in the state of grace, or not old enough to receive communion, cannot
receive Communion may with arms crossed approach the priest who is distributing the Eucharist
and receive from him a blessing instead.
A rule for Catholics who are members of the Latin Church is: “A person who is to receive the
Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food
and drink, except for only water and medicine.”14 Eastern Catholics are obliged to follow the
rules of their own particular Churches, which generally require a longer period of fasting.15
Catholics must make an outward sign of reverence before receiving. “When receiving Holy
Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of
reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be
received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy

11
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1548.
12
Ibid., 1552.
13
Code of Canon Law, canon 916.
14
Code of Canon Law, canon 919 §1.
15
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 713 §2.
 Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the
Precious Blood.”16
Catholics may receive Communion during Mass or outside Mass, but “a person who has already
received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the
eucharistic celebration in which the person participates”, except as Viaticum (Code of Canon
Law, canon 917).17
In the Western Church, “the administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that
they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of
Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and
59 devotion. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death
if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently”
(Code of Canon Law, canon 913).18 In Catholic schools in the United States and Canada, children
typically receive First Communion in second grade. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the
Eucharist is administered to infants immediately after Baptism and Confirmation (Chrismation).
Holy Communion may be received under one kind (the Sacred Host alone), or under both kinds
(both the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood). “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign
when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is
more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal
Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic
banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom... (However,) Christ, whole and
entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as
far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any
of the grace that is necessary for salvation” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 281-282).
“The Diocesan Bishop is given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it
may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been
entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of
profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of
participants or some other reason” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 283).
In Eastern Catholic Churches the Eucharist is always received under both species (bread and
wine), as was done at Mass also in the West until the opposite custom came into use, beginning
in about the twelfth century.
With the change from receiving the Eucharist under both kinds to receiving under the form of
bread alone, it also became customary in the West to receive the Host placed directly on the
tongue, rather than on the hand, but this was prescribed neither by the Roman Missal nor by the
Code of Canon Law. Since the late twentieth century many Episcopal Conferences allow
communicants (at their personal discretion) to receive the Host on the hand, except when
Communion is distributed by intinction (partly dipping the Host in the Chalice before distributing
it).
The General Instruction of the Roman Missa, 118 mentions a “Communion-plate for the
Communion of the faithful”, distinct from the paten, to prevent the Host or fragments of it falling
on the ground.
Non-Catholics may only receive the Eucharist in special situations:
Ҥ1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian
faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice
to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

16
General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 160.
17
Code of Canon Law, canon 917.
18
Code of Canon Law, canon 913.
 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that
danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or
morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of
penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches
these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick
licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic
Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for
members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition
60 in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference
of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same
sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church,
who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord,
provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly
disposed. (Some dioceses have allowed pastors to make this determination as regards those in
hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional centres.)
§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not
to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the
interested non-Catholic Church or community.” (Code of Canon Law, Canon 844)
Receiving Holy Communion as part of First Friday Devotions is a Catholic devotion to offer
reparations for sins through the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the visions of Christ reported by St.
Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 17th century, several promises were made to those people that
practice the First Fridays Devotions, one of which included final perseverance.
The devotion consists of several practices that are performed on the first Fridays of nine
consecutive months. On these days, a person is to attend Holy Mass and receive communion. In
many Catholic communities the practice of the Holy Hour of meditation during the Exposition
of the Blessed Sacrament during the First Fridays is encouraged.
 Historical summary of the sacrament of the Eucharist

1. Summary from the Last Supper to 100 A.D.

a. Jesus uses Jewish Passover meal in a new way to express New Covenant; new
relationship between God and humankind.
b. Jesus asked faith of followers during this meal that through his word, bread and wine
make him present.
Jesus opened the meal with a psalm that praised God, he then took the bread, gave thanks for it
61
and, breaking tradition, followed this with new words: “Take and eat. This is my body that will
be given up for you.” This bread was now his body. It would be given up, that is offered on the
cross. Jesus had broken with the Jewish traditions by breaking the bread – and so this was the
first celebration of the Eucharist in history. At the end of the meal, Jesus took the cup filled with
wine and instead of making the usual toast he again broke tradition and said, “Take and
drink...This is my blood. . . It will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.” As they
drank of the one cup and ate of the one bread they experienced their unity in Christ. Finally,
Christ gave them and their successors the power to celebrate Eucharist: “Do this in memory of
me.” They all sang a psalm and Jesus went forth to his saving death and resurrection. In this event
Jesus gave us the sacrament of the Eucharist.

2. Summary from 100-600 A.D.

From Meal to Worship. Gradually the apostles and their successors developed the Eucharistic
celebration into the structure that endures to this day. They first named it the “Breaking of the
Bread” but soon they saw the need to separate the rite from a meal, both because of abuses at
meals (1 Cor 11:17-22) and because they wanted a more prayerful setting for this act of worship.
Eucharist was moved to Sunday in memory of Christ’s resurrection. In place of the meal the early
Christians created a Liturgy of the Word somewhat that included readings from Scripture, singing
of psalms and an instruction. Around the words of institution, they added prayers of thanksgiving,
praise and intercession.
The Western Mass, like all liturgies, begins, of course, with the Last Supper. What Christ then
did, repeated as he commanded in memory of Him, is the nucleus of the Mass. Many scholars
believe that when Christ instituted the Last Supper, he did so in Aramaic. As soon as the Faith
was brought to the West the Holy Eucharist was celebrated here, as in the East. At first the
language used was Greek. Out of that earliest Liturgy, the language being changed to Latin,
developed the two great parent rites of the West, the Roman and the Gallican. It should be noted
the question of the change of language from Greek to Latin is less important than if might seem.
It came about naturally when Greek ceased to be the usual language of the Roman Christians.
Of these two the Gallican Mass may be traced without difficulty. It is so plainly Antiochene in
its structure, in the very text of many of its prayers, that we are safe in accounting for it as a
translated form of the Liturgy of Jerusalem-Antioch, brought to the West at about the time when
the more or less fluid universal Liturgy of the first three centuries gave place to different fixed
rites. Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus and Novatian all agree in the Liturgies they
describe, though the evidence of the last two is scanty.
• The new Passover meal or Eucharist is celebrated primarily in homes as a meal of unity
among believers.
• The ritual of Eucharist:
1) readings from Old Testament
2) readings from letters and gospels that later became the New Testament
3) explanation or homily about readings and teachings of Jesus
 4) sharing Jesus’ presence through bread and wine in context of a meal – at first an
actual meal and later a stylized one.
The question of the change of language from Greek to Latin is less important than if might seem.
It came about naturally when Greek ceased to be the usual language of the Roman Christians.
Pope Victor I (190-202), an African, seems to have been the first to use Latin at Rome, Novatian
writes Latin. By the second half of the third century the usual liturgical language at Rome seems
to have been Latin, though fragments of Greek remained for many centuries. Other writers think
that Latin was not finally adopted till the end of the fourth century. No doubt, for a time both
languages were used. The Creed was sometimes said in Greek, some psalms were sung in that
62 language, the lessons on Holy Saturday were read in Greek and Latin as late as the eighth century.
There are still such fragments of Greek (“Kyrie eleison”, “Agios O Theos”) in the Roman Mass.
But a change of language does not involve a change of rite. Novatian's Latin allusions to the
Eucharistic prayer agree very well with those of Clement of Rome in Greek, and with the Greek
forms in Apostolic Constitutions, VIII.
The Apostolic Constitutions were a fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books,
of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine,
intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity.
The Growing Body of Christ. The year 313 was a turning point for Christianity. Persecutions
suddenly ended. Constantine gave freedom to Christians and spent great sums of money building
basilicas for Eucharistic worship. Modest house churches gradually ceased to exist. Processions,
courtly movement in the sanctuary, metered chant and sung litanies that galvanized the voices of
thousands, incense and bells, kissing sacred objects and the use of genuflections became a pattern
to accompany the ancient structure of the Eucharist. The celebrants wore clothes worthy of a
Roman senator. Their robes eventually came to be called vestments, since they were retained
long after fashions changed. The simple plates and cups of house worship became elaborate
chalices and patens. During this era, important bishops like Augustine developed a theology of
the Eucharist – his theme was – “The Body of Christ [Eucharist] builds the Body of Christ
[Church]. “
The course of the liturgy:
a. Eucharist celebrated in homes, very simply until 313.
b. Eucharist taken in hand and often taken home to sick or for communion during week.
c. The Eucharist is not celebrated daily.
d. In 313, public buildings used for the Eucharist.
e. Prayers and rituals become more formalized rather than spontaneous.
f. Renewal needed even by 384 when the Eucharistic celebration is changed from Greek
to Latin
g. The reform of St. Gregory the Great
Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of
Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass,
the Canon. The modifications in the earlier part, the smaller number of lessons, the omission of
the prayers for and expulsion of the catechumens, of the prayers of the faithful before the
Offertory and so on, may be accounted for easily as a result of the characteristic Roman tendency
to shorten the service and leave out what had become superfluous.
The influence of the calendar has already been noticed. But there remains the great question of
the arrangement of the Canon. That the order of the prayers that make up the Canon is a cardinal
difficulty is admitted by everyone. The old attempts to justify their present order by symbolic or
mystic reasons have now been given up. The Roman Canon as it stands is recognized as a problem
of great difficulty. It differs fundamentally from the Anaphora of any Eastern rite and from the
Gallican Canon. Whereas in the Antiochene family of liturgies (including that of Gaul) the great
 Intercession follows the Consecration, which comes at once after the Sanctus, and in the
Alexandrine class the Intercession is said during what we should call the Preface before the
Sanctus, in the Roman Rite the Intercession is scattered throughout the Canon, partly before and
partly after the Consecration. We may add to this the other difficulty, the omission at Rome of
any kind of clear Invocation of the Holy Ghost (epiklesis). Scholars theorize that the Roman
Mass, starting from the primitive vaguer rite (practically that of the Apostolic Constitutions), at
first followed the development of Jerusalem-Antioch, and was for a time very similar to the
Liturgy of St. James. Then it was recast to bring if nearer to Alexandria. This change was made
probably by Gelasius I under the influence of his guest, John Talaia of Alexandria.
63 At Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period
between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the
faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the
Consecration, and the epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer. Of the
various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say with Rauschen:
“Although the question is by no means decided, nevertheless there is so much in favour of Drew’s
theory that for the present it must be considered the right one. We must then admit that between
the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon”.

3. Summary to Reformation
The Eucharist Becomes Distant for Most. The Medieval times saw a growth in stunning
cathedrals right across Europe. Colourful religious processions, pilgrimages to holy shrines, the
birth of new religious orders and much more led some to call these centuries the “ages of faith”.
However, during these times, active participation in the Mass declined. The altar was often
hidden from public view. Priests conducted the liturgy without the need for participation of the
congregation in the Eucharist. The Mass remained in Latin, even though people began using their
local languages for most things in their lives. The people compensated for their estrangement by
asking the priest to hold up the host for their view and adoration. Many Catholics had ceased
receiving communion so adoration of the Blessed Sacrament became popular. Meanwhile,
Berengar of Tours taught that Jesus was not really present in the host, which was only a symbol
of his presence. The Church repudiated his views in 1215 by affirming Christ’s Real Presence
and introducing the concept of transubstantiation (the substance of bread becomes the substance
or “being” of Christ) to support this doctrine.
Pre-Tridentine Mass refers to the variants of the liturgical rite of Mass in Rome before 1570,
when, with his bull Quo primum, Pope Pius V made the Roman Missal, as revised by him,
obligatory throughout the Latin-Rite or Western Church, except for those places and
congregations whose distinct rites could demonstrate an antiquity of two hundred years or more.
The Pope made this revision of the Roman Missal, which included the introduction of the Prayers
at the Foot of the Altar and the addition of all that in his Missal follows the Ite missa est, at the
request of Council of Trent (1545–63), presented to his predecessor at its final session. Outside
Rome before 1570, many other liturgical rites were in use, not only in the East, but also in the
West. Some Western rites, such as the Mozarabic Rite, were unrelated to the Roman Rite which
Pope Pius V revised and ordered to be adopted generally, and even areas that had accepted the
Roman rite had introduced changes and additions. The final version of the Tridentine Mass was
codified in 1570 by the Council of Trent, but some of the material in it is nearly 1000 years older.
The Council of Trent was a response by the Catholic Church to the dramatic upheaval of the
Reformation. Roman Catholic bishops met for 25 sessions of debate between 1545 and 1563;
further discussions continued in Rome for years afterwards. Liturgical reform wasn’t the
Council's only result; it led to the founding of the Jesuits, a revision of the Church Calendar and
much clarification and codification of Catholic doctrine. The Mass remained unchanged for 400
 years, and served the Church well, despite coming in for much criticism in more recent times,
largely for giving the congregation virtually no active role to play in the service. Incidentally, the
Tridentine Mass didn't completely remove all other orders of the Mass: several others survived
on a small scale, among them the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite of Toledo, the rite of Braga,
the Carthusian rite, the Carmelite rite and the Dominican rite.
After Pius V’s original Tridentine Roman Missal, the first new typical edition was promulgated
in 1604 by Pope Clement VIII, who in 1592 had issued a revised edition of the Vulgate. The
Bible texts in the Missal of Pope Pius V did not correspond exactly to the new Vulgate, and so
Clement edited and revised Pope Pius V’s Missal, making alterations both in the scriptural texts
64 and in other matters. He abolished some prayers that the 1570 Missal obliged the priest to say on
entering the church; shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor; directed that the
words “Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in meam memoriam facietis” (“Do this in memory of me”)
should not be said while displaying the chalice to the people after the consecration, but before
doing so; inserted directions at several points of the Canon that the priest was to pronounce the
words inaudibly; suppressed the rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to
give the final blessing with three signs of the cross; and rewrote the rubrics, introducing, for
instance, the ringing of a small bell. The next typical edition was issued in 1634, when Pope
Urban VIII made another general revision of the Roman Missal. There was no further typical
edition until that of Pope Leo XIII in 1884. It introduced only minor changes, not profound
enough to merit having the papal bull of its promulgation included in the Missal, as the bulls of
1604 and 1634 were. In 1911, with the bull Divino Afflatu, Pope Pius X made significant changes
in the rubrics. He died in 1914, so it fell to his successor Pope Benedict XV to issue a new typical
edition incorporating his changes. This 1920 edition included a new section headed: “Additions
and Changes in the Rubrics of the Missal in accordance with the Bull Divino afflatu and the
Subsequent Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites”. This additional section was almost as
long as the previous section on the “General Rubrics of the Missal”, which continued to be printed
unchanged.
Pope John Paul II, the Society of St. Pius X, and Ecclesia Dei
Addressing these criticisms and responding to the schism of the Society of St. Pius X (who had
continued to celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass), Pope John Paul II issued a motu proprio on
July 2, 1988. The document, entitled Ecclesia Dei, declared that “Respect must everywhere be
shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide
and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for
the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962”—in other words, for the
celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass.
The Return of the Traditional Latin Mass
The decision to allow the celebration was left up to the local bishop, and, over the next 15 years,
some bishops made a “generous application of the directives” while others did not. John Paul’s
successor, Pope Benedict XVI, had long expressed his desire to see a wider use of the Tridentine
Latin Mass, and, on June 28, 2007, the Press Office of the Holy See announced that he would
release a motu proprio of his own.
Summorum Pontificum, released on July 7, 2007, allowed all priests to celebrate the Tridentine
Latin Mass in private and to hold public celebrations when requested by the faithful.
Pope Benedict’s action paralleled other initiatives of his pontificate, including a new English
translation of the Novus Ordo to bring out some of the theological richness of the Latin text that
was missing in the translation used for the first 40 years of the New Mass, the curbing of abuses
in the celebration of the Novus Ordo, and the encouragement of the use of Latin and Gregorian
chant in the celebration of the Novus Ordo. Pope Benedict also expressed his belief that a wider
 celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass would allow the older Mass to act as a standard for the
celebration of the newer one.
4. Liturgical Renewal ordered by Vatican II
“In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from
the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general
restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely
instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed
with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of
harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
65 In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly
the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be
enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits
a community.” [Sacrosanctum Concilium 21]
The changes willed by the approximately 2700 to 4 vote of the world's Catholic bishops in the
document cited above can be summarized as:
1) restore the active participation of the people,
2) remove accretions and duplications which crept into the Roman Mass in millennium
before Pope Pius V imposed it on the Latin Church, and
3) manifest the proper sacramentality of the Mass as an act of Christ, Head and Body.
These were legitimate and long over-due reforms, as the virtually unanimous vote of the
hierarchy shows. Other goals of the reforms can be read in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Active Participation (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 14-20). In the context of the
Reformation the essentialism of the Missal of Pius V makes sense. The emphasis is on the
theologically essential participant, the priest, without whose power the Eucharist cannot be
confected. The role of the laity, who through baptism is a member of the Body of Christ, tended
to be passive. The layperson’s role in the effecting of the Eucharist was accidental (in the
philosophical sense of not being “of the essence”), though the rubrics required the presence of at
least one layman (to complete the sign of Christ, Head and members). As a consequence, the
people were left to pray privately, their active role fulfilled by the servers. Put another way, their
Mass participation was primarily devotional (the rosary, prayer books etc.), as opposed to
liturgical (giving the responses, following the prayers devoutly etc.). One of the key reforms of
the Council was to restore the properly liturgical role of the people to them. Even before the
Council the trend favoured lay missals with Latin-English, and dialogic Masses, where the people
give the responses, over praying private devotions during Mass. Contrary to the assumption of
many Catholics, liturgical piety is more meritorious than personal devotion. Certainly, the quiet
and peace of nearly silent Masses fosters a feeling of devotion; however, objectively, through
active liturgical participation we exercise the priestly office of Christ Himself conferred by
baptism and thus share in His merit. Of course, interior spiritual participation must also be
present, and not just external activity, for active liturgical participation to be authentic.
Participation in the Pascal Mysteries is not primarily a matter of feeling, or even external doing,
but of faith and charity.
Accretions and Duplications (SC 21-25). The Holy See had long encouraged the study of the
nature of the liturgy and the historical origins of its parts. The findings of theologians such as Fr.
Joseph Jungmann (The Mass of the Roman Rite, 3 vols., Christian Classics, 1950, 1986), clearly
reveal the mutability of the Mass from the time of the earliest known Roman sacramentaries (5th
and 6th century). Rather than being a static form, the Roman Rite had absorbed customs from
other local Churches (e.g. Gaul), as well as developed its own, an evolution that ended with Pius
V and Trent. What had once been “novelties” when first adopted at Rome became fixed parts of
the “immemorial Mass”. The only constant being the authority of the Apostolic See to permit,
 order and even to impose them. Without judging the virtue of this change or that following
Vatican II, on which there are legitimate arguments pro and con, the need for the reform of the
Tridentine Mass was certainly accepted by all bishops and theologians.
Sacramentality of the Roles (SC 26-32). The Church is the mystical Christ, Head and Body (1
Cor. 12). The ministerial priest is the sacramental sign of Christ the Head, who acts in persona
Christi capitis (Catechism of the Catholic Church 875, 1348, 1548). The people, though baptism,
also exercise an office (CCC 1188, 1273). It is not essential to the confecting of the Eucharist but
is essential to the sacramentality of the Eucharistic assembly. Together, priest and people, are a
sacramental sign of Christ's continuing mystical presence in the world through the Church, which
66 makes possible the perpetuation in time of the One Sacrifice of Calvary, Eucharistic Communion
and the substantial Presence of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament itself. The sacramentality of
the Church as the Mystical Christ is clearer, therefore, when both priests and laity exercise their
proper sacramental offices as Head and Members, respectively.
 GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL

SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR EUCHARIST

(Edition 2008)

Chapter II
The structure of the mass, its elements, and its parts
67
The Liturgy of the Eucharist
72. At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Paschal Sacrifice and banquet, by which the Sacrifice
of the Cross is continuously made present in the Church whenever the Priest, representing Christ
the Lord, carries out what the Lord himself did and handed over to his disciples to be done in his
memory.
For Christ took the bread and the chalice, gave thanks, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples,
saying: Take, eat and drink: this is my Body; this is the chalice of my Blood. Do this in memory
of me. Hence, the Church has arranged the entire celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist in
parts corresponding to precisely these words and actions of Christ, namely:
a) A t the Preparation of the Gifts, bread and wine with water are brought to the altar, the
same elements, that is to say, which Christ took into his hands.
b) In the Eucharistic Prayer, thanks is given to God for the whole work of salvation, and
the offerings become the Body and Blood of Christ.
c) Through the fraction and through Communion, the faithful, though many, receive from
the one bread the Lord’s Body and from the one chalice the Lord’s Blood in the same way that
the Apostles received them from the hands of Christ himself.

The Preparation of the Gifts

73. At the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist the gifts which will become Christ’s Body
and Blood are brought to the altar.
First of all, the altar or Lord’s table, which is the center of the whole Liturgy of the Eucharist, is
made ready when on it are placed the corporal, purificator, Missal, and chalice (unless this last is
prepared at the credence table).
The offerings are then brought forward. It is a praiseworthy practice for the bread and wine to be
presented by the faithful. They are then accepted at an appropriate place by the Priest or the
Deacon to be carried to the altar. Even though the faithful no longer bring from their own
possessions the bread and wine intended for the liturgy as was once the case, nevertheless the rite
of carrying up the offerings still keeps its spiritual efficacy and significance.
Even money or other gifts for the poor or for the Church, brought by the faithful or collected in
the church, are acceptable; given their purpose, they are to be put in a suitable place away from
the Eucharistic table.
74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory Chant (cf. no. 37 b), which
continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing
are the same as for the Entrance Chant (cf. no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at
the Offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.
75. The bread and wine are placed on the altar by the Priest to the accompaniment of the
prescribed formulas; the Priest may incense the gifts placed on the altar and then incense the cross
and the altar itself, so as to signify the Church’s offering and prayer rising like incense in the
sight of God. Next, the Priest, because of his sacred ministry, and the people, by reason of their
baptismal dignity, may be incensed by the Deacon or by another minister.
 76. Then the Priest washes his hands at the side of the altar, a rite in which the desire for interior
purification finds expression.

The Prayer over the Offerings

77. Once the offerings have been placed on the altar and the accompanying rites completed, by
means of the invitation to pray with the Priest and by means of the Prayer over the Offerings, the
Preparation of the Gifts is concluded and preparation made for the Eucharistic Prayer.
At Mass, a single Prayer over the Offerings is said, and it ends with the shorter conclusion, that
is: Through Christ our Lord. If, however, the Son is mentioned at the end of this prayer, the
68 conclusion is: Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.
The people, joining in this petition, make the prayer their own by means of the acclamation Amen.

The Eucharistic Prayer

78. Now the center and high point of the entire celebration begins, namely, the Eucharistic Prayer
itself, that is, the prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification. The Priest calls upon the people to
lift up their hearts towards the Lord in prayer and thanksgiving; he associates the people with
himself in the Prayer that he addresses in the name of the entire community to God the Father
through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the meaning of this Prayer is that the whole
congregation of the faithful joins with Christ in confessing the great deeds of God and in the
offering of Sacrifice. The Eucharistic Prayer requires that everybody listens to it with reverence
and in silence.
79. The main elements of which the Eucharistic Prayer consists may be distinguished from one
another in this way:
a) The thanksgiving (expressed especially in the Preface), in which the Priest, in the name
of the whole of the holy people, glorifies God the Father and gives thanks to him for the
whole work of salvation or for some particular aspect of it, according to the varying day,
festivity, or time of year.
b) The acclamation, by which the whole congregation, joining with the heavenly powers,
sings the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy). This acclamation, which constitutes part of the
Eucharistic Prayer itself, is pronounced by all the people with the Priest.
c) The epiclesis, in which, by means of particular invocations, the Church implores the
power of the Holy Spirit that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that is,
become Christ’s Body and Blood, and that the unblemished sacrificial Victim to be
consumed in Communion may be for the salvation of those who will partake of it.
d) The Institution narrative and Consecration, by which, by means of the words and
actions of Christ, that Sacrifice is effected which Christ himself instituted during the Last
Supper, when he offered his Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, gave
them to the Apostles to eat and drink, and leaving with the latter the command to perpetuate
this same mystery.
e) The anamnesis, by which the Church, fulfilling the command that she received from
Christ the Lord through the Apostles, celebrates the memorial of Christ, recalling
especially his blessed Passion, glorious Resurrection, and Ascension into heaven.
f) The oblation, by which, in this very memorial, the Church, in particular that gathered
here and now, offers the unblemished sacrificial Victim in the Holy Spirit to the Father.
The Church’s intention, indeed, is that the faithful not only offer this unblemished
sacrificial Victim but also learn to offer their very selves, and so day by day to be brought,
through the mediation of Christ, into unity with God and with each other, so that God may
at last be all in all.
 g) The intercessions, by which expression is given to the fact that the Eucharist is
celebrated in communion with the whole Church, of both heaven and of earth, and that the
oblation is made for her and for all her members, living and dead, who are called to
participate in the redemption and salvation purchased by the Body and Blood of Christ.
h) The concluding doxology, by which the glorification of God is expressed and which is
affirmed and concluded by the people’s acclamation Amen.

The Communion Rite

80. Since the celebration of the Eucharist is the Paschal Banquet, it is desirable that in accordance
69 with the Lord’s command his Body and Blood should be received as spiritual food by those of
the faithful who are properly disposed. This is the sense of the fraction and the other preparatory
rites by which the faithful are led more immediately to Communion.

The Lord’s Prayer

81. In the Lord’s Prayer a petition is made for daily bread, which for Christians means principally
the Eucharistic Bread, and entreating also purification from sin, so that what is holy may in truth
be given to the holy. The Priest pronounces the invitation to the prayer, and all the faithful say
the prayer with him; then the Priest alone adds the embolism, which the people conclude by
means of the doxology. The embolism, developing the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer itself,
asks for deliverance from the power of evil for the whole community of the faithful.
The invitation, the Prayer itself, the embolism, and the doxology by which the people conclude
these things are sung or are said aloud.

The Rite of Peace

82. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and
for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and
mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.
As for the actual sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by the Conferences of
Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. However, it is appropriate
that each person, in a sober manner, offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest.

The Fraction of the Bread

83. The Priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread, with the assistance, if the case requires, of the Deacon
or a concelebrant. The gesture of breaking bread done by Christ at the Last Supper, which in
apostolic times gave the entire Eucharistic Action its name, signifies that the many faithful are
made one body (1 Cor 10:17) by receiving Communion from the one Bread of Life, which is
Christ, who for the salvation of the world died and rose again. The fraction or breaking of bread
is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence and should not be
unnecessarily prolonged or accorded exaggerated importance. This rite is reserved to the Priest
and the Deacon.
The Priest breaks the Bread and puts a piece of the host into the chalice to signify the unity of the
Body and Blood of the Lord in the work of salvation, namely, of the Body of Jesus Christ, living
and glorious. The supplication Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) is usually sung by the choir or cantor
with the congregation replying; or at least recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction
of the bread and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has
been completed. The final time it concludes with the words grant us peace.
 Communion
84. The Priest prepares himself by a prayer, said quietly, so that he may fruitfully receive the
Body and Blood of Christ. The faithful do the same, praying silently.
Then the Priest shows the faithful the Eucharistic Bread, holding it over the paten or over the
chalice, and invites them to the banquet of Christ; and along with the faithful, he then makes an
act of humility, using the prescribed words from the Gospels.
85. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the Priest himself is bound to do, receive the
Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the cases where this is foreseen,
they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion may
70 stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.
86. While the Priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion Chant is begun, its purpose being
to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices, to show
gladness of heart, and to bring out more clearly the “communitarian” character of the procession
to receive the Eucharist. The singing is prolonged for as long as the Sacrament is being
administered to the faithful. However, if there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion
Chant should be ended in a timely manner.
Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.
87. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for singing at
Communion: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale
Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the antiphon with Psalm from
the Graduale Simplex of the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and
antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms
arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) some other suitable liturgical chant (cf. no. 86)
approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. This is sung either by the choir
alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.
However, if there is no singing, the antiphon given in the Missal may be recited either by the
faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the Priest himself after he
has received Communion and before he distributes Communion to the faithful.
88. When the distribution of Communion is over, if appropriate, the Priest and faithful pray
quietly for some time. If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung
by the whole congregation.
89. To bring to completion the prayer of the People of God, and also to conclude the whole
Communion Rite, the Priest pronounces the Prayer after Communion, in which he prays for the
fruits of the mystery just celebrated.
At Mass a single Prayer after Communion is said, and it ends with the shorter conclusion; that is:
– if the prayer is directed to the Father: Through Christ our Lord;
– if it is directed to the Father, but the Son is mentioned at the end: Who lives and reigns for ever
and ever;
– if it is directed to the Son: Who live and reign for ever and ever.
The people make the prayer their own by means of the acclamation Amen.

Chapter IV
The different forms of celebrating Mass

112. In the local Church, first place should certainly be given, because of its significance, to the
Mass at which the Bishop presides, surrounded by his Presbyterate, Deacons, and lay ministers,
and in which the holy People of God participate fully and actively, for it is there that the principal
manifestation of the Church is found.
 At a Mass celebrated by the Bishop or at which he presides without celebrating the Eucharist, the
norms found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Ceremonial of Bishops) should be observed.
113. Great importance should also be given to a Mass celebrated with any community, but
especially with the parish community, inasmuch as it represents the universal Church at a given
time and place, and chiefly in the common Sunday celebration.
114. Moreover, among those Masses celebrated by some communities, a particular place belongs
to the Conventual Mass, which is a part of the daily Office, or the “community” Mass. Although
such Masses do not involve any special form of celebration, it is nevertheless most fitting that
they be celebrated with singing, especially with the full participation of all members of the
71 community, whether of religious or of canons. Therefore, in these Masses all should exercise
their function according to the Order or ministry they have received. Hence, it is desirable that
all the Priests who are not obliged to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful
concelebrate in so far as possible at the conventual or community Mass. In addition, all Priests
belonging to the community who are obliged, as a matter of duty, to celebrate individually for
the pastoral benefit of the faithful may also on the same day concelebrate at the conventual or
community Mass. For it is preferable that Priests who are present at a celebration of the Eucharist,
unless excused for a just reason, should usually exercise the function proper to their Order and
hence take part as concelebrants, wearing sacred vestments.
Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.

Mass with the people

115. By Mass with the people is meant a Mass celebrated with the participation of the faithful.
Moreover, it is appropriate, in so far as possible, and especially on Sundays and Holydays of
Obligation, that the celebration take place with singing and with a suitable number of ministers.
It may, however, take place even without singing and with only one minister.
116. If at any celebration of Mass a Deacon is present, he should exercise his function.
Furthermore, it is desirable that an acolyte, a reader, and a cantor should usually be there to assist
the Priest Celebrant. Indeed, the rite described below foresees an even greater number of
ministers.

Things to be prepared
117. The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar
are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or
six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a Holyday of Obligation, or if the Diocesan Bishop
celebrates, then seven candlesticks with lighted candles. Likewise, on the altar or close to it, there
is to be a cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross with the figure
of Christ crucified may also be carried in the procession at the Entrance. On the altar itself may
be placed a Book of the Gospels distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in
the Entrance Procession.
118. Likewise these should be prepared:
a) next to the Priest’s chair: the Missal and, if appropriate, a hymnal;
b) at the ambo: the Lectionary;
c) on the credence table: the chalice, corporal, purificator, and, if appropriate, the pall; the
paten and, if needed, ciboria; bread for the Communion of the Priest who presides, the Deacon,
the ministers, and the people; cruets containing the wine and the water, unless all of these are
presented by the faithful in the procession at the Offertory; the vessel of water to be blessed, if
the sprinkling of holy water takes place; the Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful;
and whatever is needed for the washing of hands.
It is a praiseworthy practice for the chalice to be covered with a veil, which may be either of the
 colour of the day or white.
119. In the sacristy, according to the various forms of celebration, there should be prepared the
sacred vestments (cf. nos. 337-341) for the Priest, the Deacon, and other ministers:
a) for the Priest: the alb, the stole, and the chasuble;
b) for the Deacon: the alb, the stole, and the dalmatic; the latter may be omitted, however,
either out of necessity or on account of a lesser degree of solemnity;
c) for the other ministers: albs or other lawfully approved attire.
All who wear an alb should use a cincture and an amice unless, due to the form of the alb, they
are not needed. When the Entrance takes place with a procession, the following are also to be
72 prepared: a Book of the Gospels; on Sundays and festive days, a thurible and incense boat, if
incense is being used; the cross to be carried in procession; and candlesticks with lighted candles.

Mass with a Deacon

171. When he is present at the celebration of the Eucharist, a Deacon should exercise his ministry,
wearing sacred vestments. In fact, the Deacon:
a) assists the Priest and walks at his side;
b) ministers at the altar, both as regards the chalice and the book;
c) proclaims the Gospel and may, at the direction of the Priest Celebrant, give the Homily
(cf. no. 66);
d) guides the faithful people by giving appropriate instructions, and announces the
intentions of the Universal Prayer;
e) assists the Priest Celebrant in distributing Communion, and purifies and arranges the
sacred vessels;
f) carries out the duties of other ministers himself, if necessary, when none of them is
present.

The Introductory Rites

172. Carrying the Book of the Gospels slightly elevated, the Deacon precedes the Priest as he
approaches the altar or else walks at the Priest’s side.
173. When he reaches the altar, if he is carrying the Book of the Gospels, he omits the sign of
reverence and goes up to the altar. It is a praiseworthy practice for him to place the Book of the
Gospels on the altar, after which, together with the Priest, he venerates the altar with a kiss.
If, however, he is not carrying the Book of the Gospels, he makes a profound bow to the altar
with the Priest in the customary way and with him venerates the altar with a kiss.
Lastly, if incense is being used, he assists the Priest in putting some into the thurible and in
incensing the cross and the altar.
174. Once the altar has been incensed, the Deacon goes to the chair together with the Priest and
there stands at the Priest’s side and assists him as necessary.

The Liturgy of the Word

175. During the singing of the Alleluia or other chant, if incense is being used, the Deacon
ministers to the Priest as he puts incense into the thurible. Then, bowing profoundly before the
Priest, he asks for the blessing, saying in a low voice, Your blessing, Father. The Priest blesses
him, saying, May the Lord be in your heart. The Deacon signs himself with the Sign of the Cross
and replies, Amen. Having bowed to the altar, he then takes up the Book of the Gospels which
was placed on it and proceeds to the ambo, carrying the book slightly elevated. He is preceded
by a thurifer carrying a smoking thurible and by ministers with lighted candles. At the ambo the
Deacon greets the people, with hands joined, saying, The Lord be with you. After this, at the
words A reading from the holy Gospel, he signs with his thumb the book and then himself on his
 forehead, mouth, and breast. He incenses the book and proclaims the Gospel reading. When this
is done, he acclaims, The Gospel of the Lord, and all reply, Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ. He
then venerates the book with a kiss, saying quietly the formula Per evangelica dicta (Through
the words of the Gospel), and returns to the Priest’s side.
When the Deacon is assisting the Bishop, he carries the book to him to be kissed, or else kisses
it himself, saying quietly the formula Per evangelica dicta (Through the words of the Gospel). In
more solemn celebrations, if appropriate, the Bishop may impart a blessing to the people with the
Book of the Gospels.
Lastly, the Deacon may carry the Book of the Gospels to the credence table or to another suitable
73 and dignified place.
176. Moreover, if there is no other suitable reader present, the Deacon should proclaim the other
readings as well.
177. After the introduction by the Priest, it is the Deacon himself who announces the intentions
of the Universal Prayer, usually from the ambo.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

178. After the Universal Prayer, while the Priest remains at the chair, the Deacon prepares the
altar, assisted by the acolyte, but it is the Deacon’s place to take care of the sacred vessels himself.
He also assists the Priest in receiving the people’s gifts. After this, he hands the Priest the paten
with the bread to be consecrated, pours wine and a little water into the chalice, saying quietly, By
the mystery of this water, etc., and after this presents the chalice to the Priest. He may also carry
out the preparation of the chalice at the credence table. If incense is being used, the Deacon assists
the Priest during the incensation of the offerings, the cross, and the altar; and after this the Deacon
himself or the acolyte incenses the Priest and the people.
179. During the Eucharistic Prayer, the Deacon stands near the Priest, but slightly behind him, so
that when necessary he may assist the Priest with the chalice or the Missal.
From the epiclesis until the Priest shows the chalice, the Deacon usually remains kneeling. If
several Deacons are present, one of them may place incense in the thurible for the Consecration
and incense the host and the chalice at the elevation.
180. At the concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Deacon stands next to the Priest,
and holds the chalice elevated while the Priest elevates the paten with the host, until the people
have acclaimed, Amen.
181. After the Priest has said the prayer for the Rite of Peace and the greeting The peace of the
Lord be with you always and the people have replied, And with your spirit, the Deacon, if
appropriate, says the invitation to the Sign of Peace. With hands joined, he faces the people and
says, Let us offer each other the sign of peace. Then he himself receives the Sign of Peace from
the Priest and may offer it to those other ministers who are nearest to him.
182. After the Priest’s Communion, the Deacon receives Communion under both kinds from the
Priest himself and then assists the Priest in distributing Communion to the people. If Communion
is given under both kinds, the Deacon himself administers the chalice to the communicants; and,
when the distribution is over, standing at the altar, he immediately and reverently consumes all
of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted, if the case requires, by other Deacons and Priests.
183. When the distribution of Communion is over, the Deacon returns to the altar with the Priest,
collects the fragments, should any remain, and then carries the chalice and other sacred vessels
to the credence table, where he purifies them and arranges them as usual, while the Priest returns
to the chair. Nevertheless, it is also permitted to leave vessels needing to be purified on a corporal,
suitably covered, on the credence table, and to purify them immediately after Mass, following
the Dismissal of the people.
The Concluding Rites
 184. Once the Prayer after Communion has been said, the Deacon makes brief announcements to
the people, if indeed any need to be made, unless the Priest prefers to do this himself.
185. If a Prayer over the People or a formula of Solemn Blessing is used, the Deacon says, Bow
down for the blessing. After the Priest’s blessing, the Deacon, with hands joined and facing the
people, dismisses the people, saying, Ite, missa est (Go forth, the Mass is ended).
186. T hen, together with the Priest, the Deacon venerates the altar with a kiss, makes a profound
bow, and withdraws in a manner similar to the Entrance Procession.

The Functions of the Acolyte

74 187. The functions that the acolyte may carry out are of various kinds and several may occur at
the same moment. Hence, it is desirable that these duties be suitably distributed among several
acolytes. If, in fact, only one acolyte is present, he should perform the more important duties
while the rest are to be distributed among several ministers.

The Introductory Rites

188. I n the procession to the altar, the acolyte may carry the cross, walking between two ministers
with lighted candles. Upon reaching the altar, however, the acolyte places the cross upright near
the altar so that it may serve as the altar cross; otherwise, he puts it away in a dignified place.
Then he takes his place in the sanctuary.
189. Through the entire celebration, it is for the acolyte to approach the Priest or the Deacon,
whenever necessary, in order to present the book to them and to assist them in any other way
required. Thus it is appropriate that, in so far as possible, the acolyte should occupy a place from
which he can easily carry out his ministry either at the chair or at the altar.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

190. In the absence of a Deacon, after the Universal Prayer and while the Priest remains at the
chair, the acolyte places the corporal, the purificator, the chalice, the pall, and the Missal on the
altar. Then, if necessary, the acolyte assists the Priest in receiving the gifts of the people and, if
appropriate, brings the bread and wine to the altar and hands them to the Priest. If incense is being
used, the acolyte presents the thurible to the Priest and assists him while he incenses the offerings,
the cross, and the altar. Then the acolyte incenses the Priest and the people.
191. A duly instituted acolyte, as an extraordinary minister, may, if necessary, assist the Priest in
distributing Communion to the people. If Communion is given under both kinds, in the absence
of a Deacon, the acolyte administers the chalice to the communicants or holds the chalice if
Communion is given by intinction.
192. Likewise, after the distribution of Communion is complete, a duly instituted acolyte helps
the Priest or Deacon to purify and arrange the sacred vessels. In the absence of a Deacon, a duly
instituted acolyte carries the sacred vessels to the credence table and there purifies them, wipes
them, and arranges them as usual.
193. After the celebration of Mass, the acolyte and other ministers return together with the
Deacon and the Priest in procession to the sacristy, in the same manner and in the same order in
which they entered.

The Functions of the Reader

Introductory Rites
194. In the procession to the altar, in the absence of a Deacon, the reader, wearing approved attire,
may carry the Book of the Gospels, slightly elevated. In that case, the reader walks in front of the
Priest but otherwise walks along with the other ministers.
 195. Upon reaching the altar, the reader makes a profound bow with the others. If he is carrying
the Book of the Gospels, he approaches the altar and places the Book of the Gospels upon it. Then
the reader takes his own place in the sanctuary with the other ministers.

The Liturgy of the Word

196. The reader reads from the ambo the readings that precede the Gospel. In the absence of a
psalmist, the reader may also proclaim the Responsorial Psalm after the First Reading.
197. I n the absence of a Deacon, the reader, after the introduction by the Priest, may announce
the intentions of the Universal Prayer from the ambo.
75 198. I f there is no singing at the Entrance or at Communion and the antiphons given in the Missal
are not recited by the faithful, the reader may read them at an appropriate time (cf. nos. 48, 87).

Concelebrated Mass
199. Concelebration, by which the unity of the Priesthood, of the Sacrifice, and also of the whole
People of God is appropriately expressed, is prescribed by the rite itself for the Ordination of a
Bishop and of Priests, at the Blessing of an Abbot, and at the Chrism Mass.
It is recommended, moreover, unless the good of the Christian faithful requires or suggests
otherwise, at:
a) the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper;
b) the Mass during Councils, gatherings of Bishops, and Synods;
c) the Conventual Mass and the principal Mass in churches and oratories;
d) Masses at any kind of gathering of Priests, either secular or religious.
Every Priest, however, is allowed to celebrate the Eucharist individually, though not at the same
time as a concelebration is taking place in the same church or oratory. However, on Holy
Thursday, and for the Mass of the Easter Vigil, it is not permitted to celebrate Mass individually.
200. Visiting Priests should be gladly admitted to concelebration of the Eucharist, provided their
Priestly standing has been ascertained.
201. When there is a large number of Priests, concelebration may take place even several times
on the same day, where necessity or pastoral advantage commend it. However, this must be done
at different times or in distinct sacred places.
202. It is for the Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law, to regulate the discipline for
concelebration in all churches and oratories of his diocese.
203. To be held in particularly high regard is that concelebration in which the Priests of any given
diocese concelebrate with their own Bishop at a stational Mass, especially on the more solemn
days of the liturgical year, at the Ordination Mass of a new Bishop of the diocese or of his
Coadjutor or Auxiliary, at the Chrism Mass, at the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper, at
celebrations of the Founder Saint of a local Church or the Patron of the diocese, on anniversaries
of the Bishop, and, lastly, on the occasion of a Synod or a pastoral visitation.
In the same way, concelebration is recommended whenever Priests gather together with their own
Bishop whether on the occasion of a retreat or at any other gathering. In these cases the sign of
the unity of the Priesthood and also of the Church inherent in every concelebration is made more
clearly manifest.
204. For a particular reason, having to do either with the significance of the rite or of the festivity,
the faculty is given to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day in the following
cases:
a) a Priest who has celebrated or concelebrated the Chrism Mass on Thursday of Holy
Week may also celebrate or concelebrate the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper;
b) a Priest who has celebrated or concelebrated the Mass of the Easter Vigil may celebrate
or concelebrate Mass during the day on Easter Sunday;
 c) on the Nativity of the Lord (Christmas Day), all Priests may celebrate or concelebrate
three Masses, provided the Masses are celebrated at their proper times of day;
d) on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed (All Souls’ Day), all Priests may
celebrate or concelebrate three Masses, provided that the celebrations take place at
different times, and with due regard for what has been laid down regarding the application
of second and third Masses;
e) a Priest who concelebrates with the Bishop or his delegate at a Synod or pastoral
visitation, or concelebrates on the occasion of a gathering of Priests, may celebrate Mass
again for the benefit of the faithful. This holds also, with due regard for the prescriptions
76 of law, for groups of religious.
205. A concelebrated Mass, whatever its form, is arranged in accordance with the norms
commonly in force (cf. nos. 112-198), observing or adapting however what is set out below.
206. No one is ever to join a concelebration or to be admitted as a concelebrant once the Mass
has already begun.
207. In the sanctuary there should be prepared:
a) seats and texts for the concelebrating Priests;
b) on the credence table: a chalice of sufficient size or else several chalices.
208. If a Deacon is not present, the functions proper to him are to be carried out by some of the
concelebrants.
If other ministers are also absent, their proper parts may be entrusted to other suitable faithful
laypeople; otherwise, they are carried out by some of the concelebrants.
209. The concelebrants put on in the vesting room, or other suitable place, the sacred vestments
they customarily wear when celebrating Mass individually. However, should a just cause arise
(e.g., a more considerable number of concelebrants or a lack of vestments), concelebrants other
than the principal celebrant may omit the chasuble and simply wear the stole over the alb.

The Introductory Rites

210. When everything has been properly arranged, the procession moves as usual through the
church to the altar. The concelebrating Priests walk ahead of the principal celebrant.
211. On arriving at the altar, the concelebrants and the principal celebrant, after making a
profound bow, venerate the altar with a kiss, then go to their designated seats. As for the principal
celebrant, if appropriate, he incenses the cross and the altar and then goes to the chair.

The Liturgy of the Word

212. During the Liturgy of the Word, the concelebrants remain at their places, sitting or standing
whenever the principal celebrant does.
When the Alleluia is begun, all rise, except for a Bishop, who puts incense into the thurible
without saying anything and blesses the Deacon or, in the absence of a Deacon, the concelebrant
who is to proclaim the Gospel. However, in a concelebration where a Priest presides, the
concelebrant who in the absence of a Deacon proclaims the Gospel neither requests nor receives
the blessing of the principal celebrant.
213. The Homily is usually given by the principal celebrant or by one of the concelebrants.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

214. The Preparation of the Gifts (cf. nos. 139-146) is carried out by the principal celebrant, while
the other concelebrants remain at their places.
215. After the Prayer over the Offerings has been said by the principal celebrant, the
concelebrants approach the altar and stand around it, but in such a way that they do not obstruct
 the execution of the rites and that the sacred action may be seen clearly by the faithful. Nor should
they obstruct the Deacon whenever he needs to approach the altar by reason of his ministry.
The Deacon exercises his ministry near the altar, assisting whenever necessary with the chalice
and the Missal. However, in so far as possible, he stands back slightly, behind the concelebrating
Priests standing around the principal celebrant.

The Manner of Pronouncing the Eucharistic Prayer

216. The Preface is sung or said by the principal Priest Celebrant alone; but the Sanctus (Holy,
Holy, Holy) is sung or recited by all the concelebrants, together with the people and the choir.
77 217. After the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), the concelebrating Priests continue the Eucharistic
Prayer in the way described below. Only the principal celebrant makes the gestures, unless other
indications are given.
218. The parts pronounced by all the concelebrants together and especially the words of
Consecration,
which all are obliged to say, are to be recited in such a manner that the concelebrants speak them
in a low voice and that the principal celebrant’s voice is heard clearly. In this way the words can
be more easily understood by the people.
It is a praiseworthy practice for the parts that are to be said by all the concelebrants together and
for which musical notation is provided in the Missal to be sung.

Eucharistic Prayer I, or the Roman Canon

219. In Eucharistic Prayer I, or the Roman Canon, the Te igitur (To you, therefore, most merciful
Father) is said by the principal celebrant alone, with hands extended.
220. It is appropriate that the commemoration (Memento) of the living and the Communicantes
(In communion with those) be assigned to one or other of the concelebrating Priests, who then
pronounces these prayers alone, with hands extended, and in a loud voice.
221. The Hanc igitur (Therefore, Lord, we pray) is said once again by the principal celebrant
alone, with hands extended.
222. From the Quam oblationem (Be pleased, O God, we pray) up to and including the Supplices
(In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God), the principal celebrant alone makes the gestures,
while all the concelebrants pronounce everything together, in this manner:
a) the Quam oblationem (Be pleased, O God, we pray) with hands extended toward the
offerings;
b) the Qui pridie (On the day before he was to suffer) and the Simili modo (In a similar
way) with hands joined;
c) the words of the Lord, with each extending his right hand toward the bread and toward
the chalice, if this seems appropriate; and at the elevation looking toward them and after
this bowing profoundly;
d) the Unde et memores (Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial) and the Supra
quae (Be pleased to look upon) with hands extended;
e) for the Supplices (In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God) up to and including the
words through this participation at the altar, bowing with hands joined; then standing
upright and crossing themselves at the words may be filled with every grace and heavenly
blessing.
223. It is appropriate that the commemoration (Memento) of the dead and the Nobis quoque
peccatoribus (To us, also, your servants) be assigned to one or other of the concelebrants, who
pronounces them alone, with hands extended, and in a loud voice.
224. At the words To us, also, your servants, who though sinners, of the Nobis quoque
peccatoribus, all the concelebrants strike their breast.
 225. The Per quem haec omnia (Through whom you continue) is said by the principal celebrant
alone.

Eucharistic Prayer II
226. In Eucharistic Prayer II, the part You are indeed Holy, O Lord is pronounced by the principal
celebrant alone, with hands extended.
227. In the parts from Make holy, therefore, these gifts to the end of Humbly we pray, all the
concelebrants pronounce everything together as follows:
a) the part Make holy, therefore, these gifts, with hands extended toward the offerings;
78 b) the parts At the time he was betrayed and In a similar way with hands joined;
c) the words of the Lord, with each extending his right hand toward the bread and toward
the chalice, if this seems appropriate; and at the elevation looking toward them and after
this bowing profoundly;
d) the parts Therefore, as we celebrate and Humbly we pray with hands extended.
228. It is appropriate that the intercessions for the living, Remember, Lord, your Church, and for
the dead, Remember also our brothers and sisters, be assigned to one or other of the
concelebrants, who pronounces them alone, with hands extended, and in a loud voice.

Eucharistic Prayer III

229. In Eucharistic Prayer III, the part You are indeed Holy, O Lord is pronounced by the
principal celebrant alone, with hands extended.
230. In the parts from Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you to the end of Look, we pray
upon the oblation, all the concelebrants pronounce everything together as follows:
a) the part Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you with hands extended toward the
offerings;
b) the parts For on the night he was betrayed and In a similar way with hands joined;
c) the words of the Lord, with each extending his right hand toward the bread and toward
the chalice, if this seems appropriate; and at the elevation looking toward them and after
this bowing profoundly;
d) the parts Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial and Look, we pray, upon the
oblation with hands extended.
231. It is appropriate that the intercessions May he make of us an eternal offering to you, and May
this Sacrifice of our reconciliation, and To our departed brothers and sisters be assigned to one
or other of the concelebrants, who pronounces them alone, with hands extended, and in a loud
voice.

Eucharistic Prayer IV
232. In Eucharistic Prayer IV, the part We give you praise, Father most holy up to and including
the words he might sanctify creation to the full is pronounced by the principal celebrant alone,
with hands extended.
233. In the parts from Therefore, O Lord, we pray to the end of Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice,
all the concelebrants pronounce everything together as follows:
a) the part Therefore, O Lord, we pray with hands extended toward the offerings;
b) the parts For when the hour had come and In a similar way with hands joined;
c) the words of the Lord, with each extending his right hand toward the bread and toward
the chalice, if this seems appropriate; and at the elevation looking toward them and after
this bowing profoundly;
d) the parts Therefore, O Lord, as we now celebrate and Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice
with hands extended.
 234. It is appropriate that the intercessions Therefore, Lord, remember now and To all of us, your
children be assigned to one or other of the concelebrants, who pronounces them alone, with hands
extended, and in a loud voice.
235. As for other Eucharistic Prayers approved by the Apostolic See, the norms laid down for
each one are to be observed.
236. The concluding doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer is pronounced solely by the principal
Priest Celebrant or together, if this is desired, with the other concelebrants, but not by the faithful.

The Communion Rite

79 237. Then the principal celebrant, with hands joined, says the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer.
Next, with hands extended, he says the Lord’s Prayer itself together with the other concelebrants,
who also pray with hands extended, and together with the people.
238. The Libera nos (Deliver us) is said by the principal celebrant alone, with hands extended.
All the concelebrants, together with the people, pronounce the concluding acclamation For the
kingdom.
239. After the Deacon or, in the absence of a Deacon, one of the concelebrants, has given the
instruction Let us offer each other the sign of peace, all give one another the Sign of Peace. Those
concelebrants nearer the principal celebrant receive the Sign of Peace from him before the
Deacon does.
240. During the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), the Deacons or some of the concelebrants may help
the principal celebrant to break the hosts for the Communion of both the concelebrants and the
people.
241. After the commingling, the principal celebrant alone, with hands joined, quietly says either
the prayer Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei vivi (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God) or the
prayer Perceptio Corporis et Sanguinis tui (May the receiving of your Body and Blood).
242. Once the prayer for Communion has been said, the principal celebrant genuflects and steps
back a little. Then one after another the concelebrants come to the middle of the altar, genuflect,
and reverently take the Body of Christ from the altar. Then holding it in their right hand, with the
left hand placed underneath, they return to their places. However, the concelebrants may remain
in their places and take the Body of Christ from the paten held for them by the principal celebrant
or held by one or more of the concelebrants passing in front of them, or they may do so by handing
the paten one to another, and so to the last of them.
243. Then the principal celebrant takes a host consecrated in the same Mass, holds it slightly
raised above the paten or the chalice, and, facing the people, says the Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold
the Lamb of God). With the concelebrants and the people he continues, saying the Domine, non
sum dignus (Lord, I am not worthy).
244. Then the principal celebrant, facing the altar, says quietly, Corpus Christi custodiat me in
vitam aeternam (May the Body of Christ keep me safe for eternal life), and reverently receives
the Body of Christ.
The concelebrants do likewise, giving themselves Communion. After them the Deacon receives
the Body and Blood of the Lord from the principal celebrant.
245. The Blood of the Lord may be consumed either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by
intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.
246. If Communion is consumed by drinking directly from the chalice, one of these procedures
may be followed:
a) The principal celebrant, standing at the middle of the altar, takes the chalice and says
quietly, Sanguis Christi custodiat me in vitam aeternam (May the Blood of Christ keep me
safe for eternal life). He consumes a little of the Blood of Christ and hands the chalice to
 the Deacon or a concelebrant. He then distributes Communion to the faithful (cf. nos. 160-
162).
The concelebrants approach the altar one after another or, if two chalices are used, two by
two. They genuflect, partake of the Blood of Christ, wipe the rim of the chalice, and return
to their seats.
b) The principal celebrant consumes the Blood of the Lord standing as usual at the middle
of the altar.
The concelebrants, however, may partake of the Blood of the Lord while remaining in their
places and drinking from the chalice presented to them by the Deacon or by one of the
80 concelebrants, or even passed from one to the other. The chalice is always wiped either by
the one who drinks from it or by the one who presents it. After each has communicated, he
returns to his seat.
247. The Deacon reverently drinks at the altar all of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted, if
the case requires, by some of the concelebrants. He then carries the chalice to the credence table
and there he or a duly instituted acolyte purifies it, wipes it, and arranges it as usual (cf. no. 183).
248. The Communion of the concelebrants may also be arranged in such a way that each
communicates from the Body of the Lord at the altar and, immediately afterwards, from the Blood
of the Lord.
In this case the principal celebrant receives Communion under both kinds in the usual way (cf.
no. 158), observing, however, the rite chosen in each particular instance for Communion from
the chalice; and the other concelebrants should do the same.
After the principal celebrant’s Communion, the chalice is placed at the side of the altar on another
corporal. The concelebrants approach the middle of the altar one by one, genuflect, and
communicate
from the Body of the Lord; then they move to the side of the altar and partake of the Blood of the
Lord, following the rite chosen for Communion from the chalice, as has been remarked above.
The Communion of the Deacon and the purification of the chalice take place as described above.
249. If the concelebrants’ Communion is by intinction, the principal celebrant partakes of the
Body and Blood of the Lord in the usual way, but making sure that enough of the precious Blood
remains in the chalice for the Communion of the concelebrants. Then the Deacon, or one of the
concelebrants, arranges the chalice together with the paten containing particles of the host, if
appropriate, either in the center of the altar or at the side on another corporal.
The concelebrants approach the altar one by one, genuflect, and take a particle, intinct it partly
into the chalice, and, holding a purificator under their mouth, consume the intincted particle. They
then return to their places as at the beginning of Mass.
The Deacon also receives Communion by intinction and to the concelebrant’s words, Corpus et
Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ) replies, Amen. Moreover, the Deacon consumes
at the altar all that remains of the Precious Blood, assisted, if the case requires, by some of the
concelebrants. He carries the chalice to the credence table and there he or a duly instituted acolyte
purifies it, wipes it, and arranges it as usual.

The Concluding Rites

250. Everything else until the end of Mass is done by the principal celebrant in the usual way (cf.
nos. 166-168), with the other concelebrants remaining at their seats.
251. Before leaving the altar, the concelebrants make a profound bow to the altar. For his part
the principal celebrant, along with the Deacon, venerates the altar as usual with a kiss.
 SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR ALL FORMS OF MASS

Veneration of the Altar and the Book of the Gospels

273. According to traditional practice, the veneration of the altar and of the Book of the Gospels
is done by means of a kiss. However, where a sign of this kind is not in harmony with the
traditions or the culture of some region, it is for the Conference of Bishops to establish some
other sign in its place, with the consent of the Apostolic See.

Genuflections and Bows

81 274. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and
therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the
solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the
Easter Vigil.
During Mass, three genuflections are made by the Priest Celebrant: namely, after the elevation
of the host, after the elevation of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to
be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. nos. 210-251).
If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is situated in the sanctuary, the
Priest, the Deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they
depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.
Otherwise, all who pass before the Most Blessed Sacrament genuflect, unless they are moving
in procession.
Ministers carrying the processional cross or candles bow their heads instead of genuflecting.
275. A bow signifies reverence and honor shown to the persons themselves or to the signs that
represent them. There are two kinds of bow: a bow of the head and a bow of the body.
a) A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the
names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is being
celebrated.
b) A bow of the body, that is to say, a profound bow, is made to the altar; during the prayers
Munda cor meum (Cleanse my heart) and In spiritu humilitatis (With humble spirit); in the
Creed at the words et incarnatus est (and by the Holy Spirit . . . and became man); in the
Roman Canon at the Supplices te rogamus (In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God).
The same kind of bow is made by the Deacon when he asks for a blessing before the
proclamation of the Gospel. In addition, the Priest bows slightly as he pronounces the
words of the Lord at the Consecration.

Incensation
276. Thurification or incensation is an expression of reverence and of prayer, as is signified in
Sacred Scripture (cf. Ps 140 [141]:2; Rev 8:3).
Incense may be used optionally in any form of Mass:
a) during the Entrance Procession;
b) at the beginning of Mass, to incense the cross and the altar;
c) at the procession before the Gospel and the proclamation of the Gospel itself;
d) after the bread and the chalice have been placed on the altar, to incense the offerings,
the cross, and the altar, as well as the Priest and the people;
e) at the elevation of the host and the chalice after the Consecration.
277. The Priest, having put incense into the thurible, blesses it with the Sign of the Cross, without
saying anything.
Before and after an incensation, a profound bow is made to the person or object that is incensed,
except for the altar and the offerings for the Sacrifice of the Mass.
 Three swings of the thurible are used to incense: the Most Blessed Sacrament, a relic of the Holy
Cross and images of the Lord exposed for public veneration, the offerings for the Sacrifice of the
Mass, the altar cross, the Book of the Gospels, the paschal candle, the Priest, and the people.
Two swings of the thurible are used to incense relics and images of the Saints exposed for public
veneration; this should be done, however, only at the beginning of the celebration, following the
incensation of the altar.
The altar is incensed with single swings of the thurible in this way:
a) if the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the Priest incenses walking around
it;
82 b) if the altar is not freestanding, the Priest incenses it while walking first to the right hand
side, then to the left.
The cross, if situated on the altar or near it, is incensed by the Priest before he incenses the altar;
otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.
The Priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the Sign of the
Cross over the offerings with the thurible before going on to incense the cross and the altar.

The Purification
278. Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction or after
the Communion of the faithful, the Priest should wipe his fingers over the paten or, if necessary,
wash them. Likewise, he should also gather any fragments that may have fallen outside the paten.
279. The sacred vessels are purified by the Priest, the Deacon, or an instituted acolyte after
Communion or after Mass, in so far as possible at the credence table. The purification of the
chalice is done with water alone or with wine and water, which is then consumed by whoever
does the purification.
The paten is wiped clean as usual with the purificator.
Care is to be taken that whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ after the distribution of
Communion is consumed immediately and completely at the altar.
280. If a host or any particle should fall, it is to be picked up reverently; and if any of the Precious
Blood is spilled, the area where the spill occurred should be washed with water, and this water
should then be poured into the sacrarium in the sacristy.

Communion under Both Kinds

281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in
this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is
given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the
Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in
the Kingdom of the Father.
282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are
present at it, are made aware by the most suitable means possible of the Catholic teaching on the
form of Holy Communion as laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they
should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire,
and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and hence that as regards the
resulting fruits, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any grace that is
necessary for salvation.
Furthermore, they should teach that the Church, in her administration of the Sacraments, has the
power to lay down or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the Sacraments, that
she judges to be more readily conducive to reverence for the Sacraments and the good of the
recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places.106 However, at the same time the
 faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of
the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.
283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is
permitted for:
a) Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
b) the Deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
c) members of communities at the Conventual Mass or the “community” Mass, along with
seminarians, and all those engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral
gathering.
83 The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese,
which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups.
The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever
it may seem appropriate to the Priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own
shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of
profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of
participants or for some other cause.
In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception
of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be
followed (particularly nos. 27-54).
284. When Communion is distributed under both kinds:
a) the chalice is usually administered by a Deacon or, in the absence of a Deacon, by a
Priest, or even by a duly instituted acolyte or another extraordinary minister of Holy
Communion, or by one of the faithful who, in a case of necessity, has been entrusted with
this duty for a single occasion;
b) whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ is consumed at the altar by the Priest or the
Deacon or the duly instituted acolyte who ministered the chalice. The same then purifies,
wipes, and arranges the sacred vessels in the usual way.
Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should
be given Communion in this form.
285. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:
a) If Communion from the chalice is done by drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice
of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. However, care should be taken
lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of
the celebration.
b) If Communion from the chalice is done by intinction, the hosts should be neither too
thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being intincted partly
into the Blood of Christ they can still be easily distributed.
286. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the
chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves to the minister of the
chalice and stands facing him. The minister says, The Blood of Christ, the communicant replies,
Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth.
Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then
withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.
287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a
Communion-plate under the mouth, approaches the Priest who holds a vessel with the sacred
particles, with a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The Priest takes a host,
intincts it partly in the chalice and, showing it, says, The Body and Blood of Christ. The
communicant replies, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the Priest, and then
withdraws.
 Chapter V
The arrangement and ornamentation of churches for the celebration of the Eucharist

ARRANGEMENT OF THE SANCTUARY FOR THE SACRED SYNAXIS

295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, the Word of God is proclaimed, and the
Priest, the Deacon, and the other ministers exercise their functions. It should be appropriately
marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular
structure and ornamentation. It should, moreover, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be
easily celebrated and seen.
84

The Altar and its Ornamentation

296. The altar, on which is effected the Sacrifice of the Cross made present under sacramental
signs, is also the table of the Lord to which the People of God is convoked to participate in the
Mass, and it is also the center of the thanksgiving that is accomplished through the Eucharist.
297. The celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to take place on an altar; however,
outside a sacred place, it may take place on a suitable table, always with the use of a cloth, a
corporal, a cross, and candles.
298. It is desirable that in every church there be a fixed altar, since this more clearly and
permanently signifies Christ Jesus, the Living Stone (1 Pt 2:4; cf. Eph 2:20). In other places set
aside for sacred celebrations, the altar may be movable.
An altar is said to be fixed if it is so constructed as to be attached to the floor and not removable;
it is said to be movable if it can be displaced.
299. The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk
around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable
wherever possible.
Moreover, the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the center toward which the attention
of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.115 The altar should usually be fixed
and dedicated.
300. An altar, whether fixed or movable, should be dedicated according to the rite prescribed in
the Roman Pontifical; but it is permissible for a movable altar simply to be blessed.
301. In keeping with the Church’s traditional practice and with what the altar signifies, the table
of a fixed altar should be of stone and indeed of natural stone. In the Dioceses of the United States
of America, wood which is dignified, solid, and well-crafted may be used, provided that the altar
is structurally immobile. As to the supports or base for supporting the table, these may be made
of any material, provided it is dignified and solid.
A movable altar may be constructed of any noble and solid material suited to liturgical use,
according to the traditions and usages of the different regions.
302. The practice of the deposition of relics of Saints, even those not Martyrs, under the altar to
be dedicated is fittingly retained. However, care should be taken to ensure the authenticity of
such relics.
303. In building new churches, it is preferable for a single altar to be erected, one that in the
gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.
In already existing churches, however, when the old altar is so positioned that it makes the
people’s participation difficult but cannot be moved without damage to artistic value, another
fixed altar, skillfully made and properly dedicated, should be erected and the sacred rites
celebrated on it alone. In order that the attention of the faithful not be distracted from the new
altar, the old altar should not be decorated in any special way.
304. Out of reverence for the celebration of the memorial of the Lord and for the banquet in which
the Body and Blood of the Lord are offered, there should be, on an altar where this is celebrated,
 at least one cloth, white in color, whose shape, size, and decoration are in keeping with the altar’s
structure.
When, in the Dioceses of the United States of America, other cloths are used in addition to the
altar cloth, then those cloths may be of other colors possessing Christian honorific or festive
significance according to longstanding local usage, provided that the uppermost cloth covering
the mensa (i.e., the altar cloth itself) is always white in color.
305. Moderation should be observed in the decoration of the altar.
During Advent the floral decoration of the altar should be marked by a moderation suited to the
character of this time of year, without expressing in anticipation the full joy of the Nativity of the
85 Lord. During Lent it is forbidden for the altar to be decorated with flowers. Exceptions, however,
are Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent), Solemnities, and Feasts.
Floral decoration should always show moderation and be arranged around the altar rather than
on the altar table.
306. For only what is required for the celebration of the Mass may be placed on the altar table:
namely, from the beginning of the celebration until the proclamation of the Gospel, the Book of
the Gospels; then from the Presentation of the Gifts until the purification of the vessels, the
chalice with the paten, a ciborium, if necessary, and, finally, the corporal, the purificator, the pall,
and the Missal.
In addition, arranged discreetly, there should be whatever may be needed to amplify the Priest’s
voice.
307. The candlesticks required for the different liturgical services for reasons of reverence or the
festive character of the celebration (cf. no. 117) should be appropriately placed either on the altar
or around it, according to the design of the altar and the sanctuary, so that the whole may be
harmonious and the faithful may not be impeded from a clear view of what takes place at the altar
or what is placed upon it.
308. Likewise, either on the altar or near it, there is to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified
upon it, a cross clearly visible to the assembled people. It is desirable that such a cross should
remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations, so as to call to mind for the faithful
the saving Passion of the Lord.

The Ambo
309. The dignity of the Word of God requires that in the church there be a suitable place from
which it may be proclaimed and toward which the attention of the faithful naturally turns during
the Liturgy of the Word.
It is appropriate that generally this place be a stationary ambo and not simply a movable lectern.
The ambo must be located in keeping with the design of each church in such a way that the
ordained ministers and readers may be clearly seen and heard by the faithful.
From the ambo only the readings, the Responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet)
are to be proclaimed; likewise it may be used for giving the Homily and for announcing the
intentions of the Universal Prayer. The dignity of the ambo requires that only a minister of the
word should stand at it.
It is appropriate that before being put into liturgical use a new ambo be blessed according to the
rite described in the Roman Ritual.

The Chair for the Priest Celebrant and Other Seats

310. The chair of the Priest Celebrant must signify his function of presiding over the gathering
and of directing the prayer. Thus the more suitable place for the chair is facing the people at the
head of the sanctuary, unless the design of the building or other features prevent this: as, for
example, if on account of too great a distance, communication between the Priest and the
 congregation would be difficult, or if the tabernacle were to be positioned in the center behind
the altar. In any case, any appearance of a throne is to be avoided. It is appropriate that before
being put into liturgical use, the chair be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman
Ritual.
Likewise, seats should be arranged in the sanctuary for concelebrating Priests as well as for
Priests who are present at the celebration in choir dress but without concelebrating.
The seat for the Deacon should be placed near that of the celebrant. For the other ministers seats
should be arranged so that they are clearly distinguishable from seats for the clergy and so that
the ministers are easily able to carry out the function entrusted to them.
86

Chapter VI
The requisites for the celebration of Mass

I. THE BREAD AND WINE FOR CELEBRATING THE EUCHARIST

319. Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to
celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
320. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently
made, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.
321. By reason of the sign, it is required that the material for the Eucharistic Celebration truly
have the appearance of food. Therefore, it is desirable that the Eucharistic Bread, even though
unleavened and made in the traditional form, be fashioned in such a way that the Priest at Mass
with the people is truly able to break it into parts and distribute these to at least some of the
faithful. However, small hosts are not at all excluded when the large number of those receiving
Holy Communion or other pastoral reasons call for them. Moreover, the gesture of the fraction
or breaking of bread, which was quite simply the term by which the Eucharist was known in
apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the force and importance of the sign of the unity of
all in the one bread, and of the sign of charity by the fact that the one bread is distributed among
the brothers and sisters.
322. The wine for the celebration of the Eucharist must be from the fruit of the vine (cf. Lk 22:18),
natural, and unadulterated, that is, without admixture of extraneous substances.
323. Diligent care should be taken to ensure that the bread and wine intended for the Eucharist
are kept in a perfect state of conservation: that is, that the wine does not turn to vinegar nor the
bread spoil or become too hard to be broken easily.
324. I f after the Consecration or as he receives Communion, the Priest notices that not wine but
only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, pours wine with
water into the chalice and consecrates it, saying the part of narrative relating to the Consecration
of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.

II. SACRED FURNISHINGS IN GENERAL

325. As in the case of the building of churches, so also regarding all sacred furnishings, the
Church admits the manner of art of each individual region and accepts those adaptations that are
in keeping with the culture and traditions of the individual nations, provided that all are suited to
the purpose for which the sacred furnishings are intended.
In this matter as well, that noble simplicity should be ensured which is the best accompaniment
of genuine art.
326. In choosing materials for sacred furnishings, besides those which are traditional, others are
admissible that, according to the mentality of our own age, are considered to be noble and are
durable, and well suited for sacred use. In the Dioceses of the United States of America these
 materials may include wood, stone, or metal which are solid and appropriate to the purpose for
which they are employed.

III. SACRED VESSELS

327. A mong the requisites for the celebration of Mass, the sacred vessels are held in special
honor, and among these especially the chalice and paten, in which the bread and wine are offered
and consecrated and from which they are consumed.
328. Sacred vessels should be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts
or from a metal less precious than gold, they should generally be gilded on the inside.
87 329. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other
solid materials which in the common estimation in each region are considered precious or noble,
for example, ebony or other harder woods, provided that such materials are suitable for sacred
use. In this case, preference is always to be given to materials that do not easily break or
deteriorate. This applies to all vessels that are intended to hold the hosts, such as the paten, the
ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and others of this kind.
330. A s regards chalices and other vessels that are intended to serve as receptacles for the Blood
of the Lord, they are to have a bowl of material that does not absorb liquids. The base, on the
other hand, may be made of other solid and worthy materials.
331. For the Consecration of hosts, a large paten may fittingly be used, on which is placed the
bread both for the Priest and the Deacon and also for the other ministers and for the faithful.
332. A s regards the form of the sacred vessels, it is for the artist to fashion them in a manner that
is more particularly in keeping with the customs of each region, provided the individual vessels
are suitable for their intended liturgical use and are clearly distinguishable from vessels intended
for everyday use.
333. As for the blessing of sacred vessels, the rites prescribed in the liturgical books should be
followed.
334. The practice should be kept of building in the sacristy a sacrarium into which is poured the
water from the washing of sacred vessels and linens (cf. no. 280).

IV. SACRED VESTMENTS

335. I n the Church, which is the Body of Christ, not all members have the same function. This
diversity of offices is shown outwardly in the celebration of the Eucharist by the diversity of
sacred vestments, which must therefore be a sign of the function proper to each minister.
Moreover, these same sacred vestments should also contribute to the decoration of the sacred
action itself. The vestments worn by Priests and Deacons, as well as the attire worn by lay
ministers, are blessed before being put into liturgical use according to the rite described in the
Roman Ritual.
336. The sacred garment common to all ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb,
to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without such. Before the
alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should
be used. The alb may not be exchanged for a surplice, not even over a cassock, on occasions
when a chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when, according to the norms, only a stole is worn
without a chasuble or dalmatic.
337. The vestment proper to the Priest Celebrant at Mass and during other sacred actions directly
connected with Mass is the chasuble worn, unless otherwise indicated, over the alb and stole.
338. The vestment proper to the Deacon is the dalmatic, worn over the alb and stole; however,
the dalmatic may be omitted out of necessity or on account of a lesser degree of solemnity.
339. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, readers, and other
lay ministers may wear the alb or other appropriate and dignified clothing.
 340. The stole is worn by the Priest around his neck and hanging down in front of his chest, while
it is worn by the Deacon over his left shoulder and drawn diagonally across the chest to the right
side, where it is fastened.
341. The cope is worn by the Priest in processions and during other sacred actions, in accordance
with the rubrics proper to the individual rites.
342. As regards the form of sacred vestments, Conferences of Bishops may determine and
propose to the Apostolic See adaptations that correspond to the needs and the usages of the
individual regions.
343. For making sacred vestments, in addition to traditional materials, natural fabrics proper to
88 each region may be used, and also artificial fabrics that are in keeping with the dignity of the
sacred action and the sacred person. The Conference of Bishops will be the judge of this matter.
344. It is fitting that the beauty and nobility of each vestment not be sought in an abundance of
overlaid
ornamentation, but rather in the material used and in the design. Ornamentation on vestments
should, moreover, consist of figures, that is, of images or symbols, that denote sacred use,
avoiding anything unbecoming to this.
345. Diversity of color in the sacred vestments has as its purpose to give more effective
expression even outwardly whether to the specific character of the mysteries of faith to be
celebrated or to a sense of Christian life’s passage through the course of the liturgical year.
346. As regards the color of sacred vestments, traditional usage should be observed, namely:
a) The color white is used in the Offices and Masses during Easter Time and Christmas
Time; on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity; and furthermore on celebrations of the
Lord other than of his Passion, celebrations of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Holy
Angels, and of Saints who were not Martyrs; on the Solemnities of All Saints (November
1) and of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June 24); and on the Feasts of St. John the
Evangelist (December 27), of the Chair of St. Peter (February 22), and of the Conversion
of St. Paul (January 25).
b) The color red is used on Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion and on Friday of Holy Week
(Good Friday), on Pentecost Sunday, on celebrations of the Lord’s Passion, on the
“birthday” feast days of Apostles and Evangelists, and on celebrations of Martyr Saints.
c) The color green is used in the Offices and Masses of Ordinary Time.
d) The color violet or purple is used in Advent and Lent. It may also be worn in Offices
and Masses for the Dead.
e) Besides the color violet, the colors white or black may be used at funeral services and
at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the Dioceses of the United States of America.
f) The color rose may be used, where it is the practice, on Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday
of Advent) and on Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent).
g) On more solemn days, festive, that is, more precious, sacred vestments may be used
even if not of the color of the day.
h) The colors gold or silver may be worn on more solemn occasions in the Dioceses of the
United States of America.
347. Ritual Masses are celebrated in their proper color, in white, or in a festive color; Masses for
Various Needs, on the other hand, are celebrated in the color proper to the day or the time of year
or in violet if they have a penitential character, for example, nos. 31, 33, or 38; Votive Masses
are celebrated in the color suited to the Mass itself or even in the color proper to the day or the
time of the year.
 V. OTHER THINGS INTENDED FOR CHURCH USE
348. Besides the sacred vessels and the sacred vestments, for which some particular material is
prescribed, other furnishings that either are intended for direct liturgical use139 or are in any
other way admitted into a church should be worthy and in keeping with their particular intended
purpose.
349. Special care must be taken to ensure that the liturgical books, particularly the Book of the
Gospels and the Lectionary, which are intended for the proclamation of the Word of God and
hence receive special veneration, are to be in a liturgical action truly signs and symbols of higher
realities and hence should be truly worthy, dignified, and beautiful.
89 350. Furthermore, every care is to be taken with respect to those things directly associated with
the altar and the celebration of the Eucharist, for example, the altar cross and the cross carried in
procession.
351. Every effort should be made, even in minor matters, to observe appropriately the
requirements of art and to ensure that a noble simplicity is combined with elegance.

Chapter VII
The choice of the mass and its parts

352. The pastoral effectiveness of a celebration will be greatly increased if the texts of the
readings, the prayers, and the liturgical chants correspond as aptly as possible to the needs, the
preparation, and the culture of the participants. This will be achieved by appropriate use of the
many possibilities of choice described below.
Hence in arranging the celebration of Mass, the Priest should be attentive rather to the common
spiritual good of the People of God than to his own inclinations. He should also remember that
choices of this kind are to be made in harmony with those who exercise some part in the
celebration, including the faithful, as regards the parts that more directly pertain to them.
Since, indeed, many possibilities are provided for choosing the different parts of the Mass, it is
necessary for the Deacon, the readers, the psalmist, the cantor, the commentator, and the choir to
know properly before the celebration the texts that concern each and that are to be used, and it is
necessary that nothing be in any sense improvised. For harmonious ordering and carrying out of
the rites will greatly help in disposing the faithful for participation in the Eucharist.

I. THE CHOICE OF MASS

353. On Solemnities the Priest is obliged to follow the Calendar of the church where he is
celebrating.
354. On Sundays, on the weekdays during Advent, Christmas Time, Lent, and Easter Time, on
Feasts, and on Obligatory Memorials:
a) If Mass is celebrated with the people, the Priest should follow the Calendar of the church
where he is celebrating;
b) If Mass is celebrated with the participation of one minister only, the Priest may choose
either the Calendar of the church or his proper Calendar.
355. On Optional Memorials,
a) On the weekdays of Advent from December 17 to December 24, on days within the
Octave of the Nativity of the Lord, and on the weekdays of Lent, except Ash Wednesday
and during Holy Week, the Mass texts for the current liturgical day are used; but the Collect
may be taken from a Memorial which happens to be inscribed in the General Calendar for
that day, except on Ash Wednesday and during Holy Week. On weekdays of Easter Time,
Memorials of Saints may rightly be celebrated in full.
 b) On weekdays of Advent before December 17, on weekdays of Christmas Time from
January 2, and on weekdays of Easter Time, one of the following may be chosen: either
the Mass of the weekday, or the Mass of the Saint or of one of the Saints whose Memorial
is observed, or the Mass of any Saint inscribed in the Martyrology for that day.
c) On weekdays in Ordinary Time, there may be chosen either the Mass of the weekday,
or the Mass of an Optional Memorial which happens to occur on that day, or the Mass of
any Saint inscribed in the Martyrology for that day, or a Mass for Various Needs, or a
Votive Mass.
If he celebrates with the people, the Priest will take care not to omit too frequently and without
90 sufficient reason the readings assigned each day in the Lectionary to the weekdays, for the Church
desires that a richer portion at the table of God’s Word should be spread before the people.
For the same reason he should choose Masses for the Dead in moderation, for every Mass is
offered for both the living and the dead, and there is a commemoration of the dead in the
Eucharistic Prayer.
Where, however, the Optional Memorials of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the Saints are dear to
the faithful, the legitimate devotion of the latter should be satisfied.
Moreover, as regards the option of choosing between a Memorial inscribed in the General
Calendar and one inserted in a diocesan or religious Calendar, preference should be given, all
else being equal and in keeping with tradition, to the Memorial in the particular Calendar.

II. THE CHOICE OF TEXTS FOR THE MASS

356. In choosing texts for the different parts of the Mass, whether for the time of the year or for
Saints, the norms that follow should be observed.

The Readings
357. Sundays and Solemnities have assigned to them three readings, that is, from a Prophet, an
Apostle, and a Gospel, by which the Christian people are instructed in the continuity of the work
of salvation according to God’s wonderful design. These readings should be followed strictly. In
Easter Time, according to the tradition of the Church, instead of being from the Old Testament,
the reading is taken from the Acts of the Apostles.
For Feasts, two readings are assigned. If, however, according to the norms a Feast is raised to the
rank of a Solemnity, a third reading is added, and this is taken from the Common.
For Memorials of Saints, unless proper readings are given, the readings assigned for the weekday
are normally used. In certain cases, particularized readings are provided, that is to say, readings
which highlight some particular aspect of the spiritual life or activity of the Saint. The use of such
readings is not to be insisted upon, unless a pastoral reason truly suggests it.
358. In the Lectionary for weekdays, readings are provided for each day of every week throughout
the entire course of the year; hence, these readings will in general be used on the days to which
they are assigned, unless there occurs a Solemnity, a Feast, or Memorial that has its own New
Testament readings, that is to say, readings in which mention is made of the Saint being
celebrated.
Should, however, the continuous reading during the week from time to time be interrupted, on
account of some Solemnity or Feast, or some particular celebration, then the Priest shall be
permitted, bearing in mind the scheme of readings for the entire week, either to combine parts
omitted with other readings or to decide which readings are to be given preference over others.
In Masses for special groups, the Priest shall be allowed to choose texts more particularly suited
to the particular celebration, provided they are taken from the texts of an approved Lectionary.
 359. In addition, in the Lectionary a special selection of texts from Sacred Scripture is given for
Ritual Masses into which certain Sacraments or Sacramentals are incorporated, or for Masses
that are celebrated for certain needs.
Sets of readings of this kind have been so prescribed so that through a more apt hearing of the
Word of God the faithful may be led to a fuller understanding of the mystery in which they are
participating, and may be educated to a more ardent love of the Word of God. Therefore, the texts
proclaimed in the celebration are to be chosen keeping in mind both an appropriate pastoral
reason and the options allowed in this matter.
360. A t times, a longer and shorter form of the same text is given. In choosing between these
91 two forms, a pastoral criterion should be kept in mind. On such an occasion, attention should be
paid to the capacity of the faithful to listen with fruit to a reading of greater or lesser length, and
to their capacity to hear a more complete text, which is then explained in the Homily.
361. When a possibility is given of choosing between one or other text laid down, or suggested
as optional, attention shall be paid to the good of participants, whether, that is to say, it is a matter
of using an easier text or one more appropriate for a given gathering, or of repeating or setting
aside a text that is assigned as proper to some particular celebration while being optional for
another, just as pastoral advantage may suggest.
Such a situation may arise either when the same text would have to be read again within a few
days, as, for example, on a Sunday and on a subsequent weekday, or when it is feared that a
certain text might give rise to some difficulties for a particular group of the Christian faithful.
However, care should be taken that, when choosing scriptural passages, parts of Sacred Scripture
are not permanently excluded.
362. The adaptations to the Ordo Lectionum Missae as contained in the Lectionary for Mass for
use in the Dioceses of the United States of America should be carefully observed.

The Orations
363. In any Mass the orations proper to that Mass are used, unless otherwise noted.
On Memorials of Saints, the proper Collect is said or, if this is lacking, one from an appropriate
Common. As to the Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion, unless these are
proper, they may be taken either from the Common or from the weekday of the current time of
year.
On the weekdays in Ordinary Time, however, besides the orations from the previous Sunday,
orations from another Sunday in Ordinary Time may be used, or one of the Prayers for Various
Needs provided in the Missal. However, it shall always be permissible to use from these Masses
the Collect alone.
In this way a richer collection of texts is provided, by which the prayer life of the faithful is more
abundantly nourished.
However, during the more important times of the year, provision has already been made for this
by means of the orations proper to these times of the year that exist for each weekday in the
Missal.

The Eucharistic Prayer

364. The numerous Prefaces with which the Roman Missal is endowed have as their purpose to
bring out more fully the motives for thanksgiving within the Eucharistic Prayer and to set out
more clearly the different facets of the mystery of salvation.
365. The choice between the Eucharistic Prayers found in the Order of Mass is suitably guided
by the following norms:
a) Eucharistic Prayer I, or the Roman Canon, which may always be used, is especially
suited for use on days to which a proper text for the Communicantes (In communion with
 those whose memory we venerate) is assigned or in Masses endowed with a proper form
of the Hanc igitur (Therefore, Lord, we pray) and also in the celebrations of the Apostles
and of the Saints mentioned in the Prayer itself; likewise it is especially suited for use on
Sundays, unless for pastoral reasons Eucharistic Prayer III is preferred.
b) Eucharistic Prayer II, on account of its particular features, is more appropriately used
on weekdays or in special circumstances. Although it is provided with its own Preface, it
may also be used with other Prefaces, especially those that sum up the mystery of salvation,
for example, the Common Prefaces. When Mass is celebrated for a particular deceased
person, the special formula given may be used at the proper point, namely, before the part
92 Remember also our brothers and sisters.
c) Eucharistic Prayer III may be said with any Preface. Its use should be preferred on
Sundays and festive days. If, however, this Eucharistic Prayer is used in Masses for the
Dead, the special formula for a deceased person may be used, to be included at the proper
place, namely after the words: in your compassion, O merciful Father, gather to yourself
all your children scattered throughout the world.
d) Eucharistic Prayer IV has an invariable Preface and gives a fuller summary of salvation
history. It may be used when a Mass has no Preface of its own and on Sundays in Ordinary
Time. On account of its structure, no special formula for a deceased person may be inserted
into this prayer.

The Chants
366. I t is not permitted to substitute other chants for those found in the Order of Mass, for
example, at the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).
367. I n choosing the chants between the readings, as well as the chants at the Entrance, at the
Offertory, and at Communion, the norms laid down in their proper places are to be observed (cf.
nos. 40-41, 47-48, 61-64, 74, 86-88).

Chapter VIII
Masses and prayers for various needs and occasions and Masses for the dead

I. MASSES AND PRAYERS FOR VARIOUS NEEDS AND OCCASIONS

368. Since the liturgy of the Sacraments and Sacramentals has as its effect that for the faithful
who are properly disposed almost every event in life is sanctified by the divine grace that flows
from the Paschal Mystery, and because the Eucharist is the Sacrament of Sacraments, the Missal
provides examples of Mass formularies and orations that may be used in the various occasions
of Christian life for the needs of the whole world or for the needs of the Church, whether universal
or local.
369. In view of the rather broad possibilities of choice among the readings and orations, it is
desirable that Masses for Various Needs and Occasions be used in moderation, that is, when truly
required.
370. In all the Masses for Various Needs and Occasions, unless expressly indicated otherwise, it
is permissible to use the weekday readings and also the chants between them, if they are suited
to the celebration.
371. A mong Masses of this kind are included Ritual Masses, Masses for Various Needs and
Occasions, and Votive Masses.
372. Ritual Masses are connected to the celebration of certain Sacraments or Sacramentals. They
are prohibited on Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter, on Solemnities, on the days within the
Octave of Easter, on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed (All Souls’ Day), on Ash
 Wednesday, and during Holy Week, and furthermore due regard is to be had for the norms set
out in the ritual books or in the Masses themselves.
373. Masses for Various Needs and Occasions are used in certain situations either as occasion
arises or at fixed times.
Days or periods of prayer for the fruits of the earth, prayer for human rights and equality, prayer
for world justice and peace, and penitential observances outside Lent are to be observed in the
Dioceses of the United States of America at times to be designated by the Diocesan Bishop.
In all the Dioceses of the United States of America, January 22 (or January 23, when January 22
falls on a Sunday) shall be observed as a particular day of prayer for the full restoration of the
93 legal guarantee of the right to life and of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person
committed through acts of abortion. The liturgical celebrations for this day may be the Mass “For
Giving Thanks to God for the Gift of Human Life” (no. 48/1 of the Masses and Prayers for
Various Needs and Occasions), celebrated with white vestments, or the Mass “For the
Preservation of Peace and Justice” (no. 30 of the Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and
Occasions), celebrated with violet vestments.
374. If any case of a graver need or of pastoral advantage should arise, at the direction of the
Diocesan Bishop or with his permission, an appropriate Mass may be celebrated on any day
except Solemnities, the Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter, days within the Octave of Easter,
the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed (All Souls’ Day), Ash Wednesday, and the days
of Holy Week.
375. Votive Masses of the mysteries of the Lord or in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the
Angels or of any given Saint or of all the Saints may be said in response to the devotion of the
faithful on weekdays in Ordinary Time, even if an Optional Memorial occurs. However, it is not
permitted to celebrate as Votive Masses those that refer to mysteries related to events in the life
of the Lord or of the Blessed Virgin Mary, with the exception of the Mass of the Immaculate
Conception, since their celebration is an integral part of the course of the liturgical year.
376. On days when there occurs an Obligatory Memorial or on a weekday of Advent up to and
including December 16, of Christmas Time from January 2, and of Easter Time after the Octave
of Easter, Masses for Various Needs and Occasions and Votive Masses are in principle forbidden.
If, however, some real necessity or pastoral advantage calls for it, in the estimation of the rector
of the church or the Priest Celebrant himself, a Mass appropriate to the same may be used in a
celebration with the people.
377. On weekdays in Ordinary Time when an Optional Memorial occurs or when the Office is
of the weekday, it is permissible to celebrate any Mass for Various Needs and Occasions, or use
any prayer for the same, but to the exclusion of Ritual Masses.
378. Particularly recommended is the Saturday commemoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
because it is to the Mother of the Redeemer that in the Liturgy of the Church firstly and before
all the Saints veneration is given.

II. MASSES FOR THE DEAD

379. The Church offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ’s Pasch for the dead so that, since all
the members of Christ’s Body are in communion with one another, what implores spiritual help
for some, may bring comforting hope to others.
380. A mong the Masses for the Dead, the Funeral Mass holds first place. It may be celebrated
on any day except for Solemnities that are Holydays of Obligation, Thursday of Holy Week (Holy
Thursday), the Paschal Triduum, and the Sundays of Advent, Lent, and Easter, with due regard
also for all the other requirements of the norm of the law.
381. A Mass for the Dead, on receiving the news of a death, for the final burial, or the first
anniversary, may be celebrated even on days within the Octave of the Nativity of the Lord, on
 days when an Obligatory Memorial occurs, and on weekdays other than Ash Wednesday or the
weekdays of Holy Week.
Other Masses for the Dead or “daily” Masses, may be celebrated on weekdays in Ordinary Time
on which Optional Memorials occur or when the Office is of the weekday, provided such Masses
are actually applied for the dead.
382. At Funeral Masses there should usually be a short Homily, but to the exclusion of a funeral
eulogy of any kind.
383. The faithful, and especially those of the deceased’s family, should be urged to participate in
the Eucharistic Sacrifice offered for the deceased person, also by receiving Holy Communion.
94 384. If the Funeral Mass is directly joined to the rite of burial, once the Prayer after Communion
has been said and omitting the Concluding Rites, there takes place the Rite of Final
Commendation or Farewell. This rite is celebrated only if the body is present.
385. I n the arranging and choosing of the variable parts of the Mass for the Dead, especially the
Funeral Mass (for example, orations, readings, and the Universal Prayer), pastoral considerations
bearing upon the deceased, the family, and those attending should be kept in mind.
Moreover, pastors should take into special account those who are present at a liturgical
celebration or who hear the Gospel on the occasion of the funeral and who may be non-Catholics
or Catholics who never or hardly ever participate in the Eucharist or who seem even to have lost
the faith. For Priests are ministers of Christ’s Gospel for all.