The Old Testament and the Eucharist

            The Old Testament might seem like a strange place to encounter the Eucharist. But Christ’s Passion was not an afterthought. Salvation history may be a much longer road than that to Golgotha, but both lead inexorably to the Cross.

            Sometimes we make the mistake of discarding the Old Testament as if it was a relic of the past, only meaningful to Judaism, and nullified by the New Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Old Testament remains divinely inspired and is immensely relevant to our faith today.

            We should not be surprised therefore to find that parts of the Old Testament prepare us for the Eucharist. In Verbum Domini, Pope Benedict XVI writes, “God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages despite human resistance.” St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not able as yet” (1 Cor. 3:2). The Old Testament’s prefiguring of the Eucharist is the “milk” fed to children before they are mature enough to eat the “meat,” the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

             Four parts of the Old Testament that lead us to the Eucharist are: the priesthood of Melchisedech, the near-sacrifice of Isaac, the Paschal Lamb, and the Paschal cups.

            We read in Genesis chapter 14 that after Abraham rescues Lot from the four kings, a mysterious priest appears. His name is Melchisedech. He is “the priest of the most high God” (Gen. 14:18) and the king of Salem. Melchisedech blesses Abraham after his victory. What is significant is not that he blesses Abraham, but how he does so. Melchisedech comes “bringing forth bread and wine” (14:19). Does that sound familiar? It should. Melchisedech’s blessing of the bread and wine foreshadows Christ instituting the Eucharist by blessing bread and wine during the Last Supper. That is why Hebrews 7:17 says (Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.”

            We all know the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah (see Genesis 22:1-14). As familiar as the account is, however, we often miss details that point towards the future sacrifice of Christ.

Isaac is Abraham’s only son by Sarah, the one in whom the Lord said, “shall thy seed be called” (21:12). In Isaac rests the covenant between God and Abraham that the former would be a father of many nations” (17:4). Similarly, Christ is the only-begotten Son of God. He is also the key to a covenant, but in a different way. While Isaac would fulfill the Lord’s covenant with Abraham through living and producing offspring, Christ fulfills the new covenant in His sacrifice on the Cross: “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you” (Luke 22:20). Both Isaac and Christ carry wood up a mountain. Isaac carries the wood upon which he would have been immolated while Christ carries His Cross upon which He is crucified. We know that Christ is a willing victim. Is Isaac?

While Isaac never vocally consents to his sacrifice in the Genesis account, we have good reason to believe that he was not bound unwillingly. At the time Isaac was born, Abraham was a hundred years old. Far from being a helpless infant (perhaps the only person a centenarian would be capable of overpowering), Isaac is strong enough to carry the bundle of wood up the mountain. It is reasonable to believe that Isaac would have been able to resist his elderly father. The fact that he did not do so means that he probably expected, like Abraham, that God would provide a victim to take his place.

And so God does. The angel of the Lord tells Abraham to stay his hand, and Abraham sees a ram stuck in the briars. Here, the comparison shifts, and it is the ram that represents Christ. The ram is stuck, thorny briars around its head. This image reminds us of the crown of thorns worn by Christ.

More importantly, the ram is sacrificed in Isaac’s place. The ram saves Isaac from certain death just like Christ who saves humanity from the death of the spirit that comes from sin.

God provides a victim to die instead of Isaac. Abraham accordingly renames Mount Moriah “the Lord will provide” (Gen. 22:14). Traditionally, it is held that the name of Jerusalem comes from Abraham’s renaming of Moriah. Jira is Hebrew for “to provide;” thus Salem, the land of Melchisedech, becomes Jerusalem (Hahn, Scott. A Father Who Keeps His Promises. 108). A ram was provided for Isaac in roughly the same area the Son of God would be provided for His people. The Eucharist is a fulfillment of the sacrifice foreshadowed by Abraham’s actions on Mount Moriah.

            Parallels can also be seen between the Paschal Lamb and the Eucharist. The Paschal Lamb is the sacrificial offering mandated for the Passover meal. There is a reason we call Christ the Lamb of God. Following the Lord’s commands, Moses first directed the Israelites to sacrifice a lamb so that they might be saved from the final plague to afflict the Egyptians: the death of the firstborns. Afterwards, the Passover meal was a remembrance of their deliverance from slavery.

Very specific instructions were given as to the lamb. It had to be “without blemish, a male a year old” (Exod. 12:5). Jesus is, of course, without sin and a man. As I said, the lamb was sacrificed to save the Israelites: “the blood [of the lamb] shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, when I smite the land of Egypt” (12:17). In the same way, it is the blood of Christ that saves us from the damnation merited by our sins.

Now, Moses says, “therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as an ordinance for ever” (12:17). But we as Christians don’t celebrate the Passover described in Exodus. Does this mean we don’t follow the word of God delivered through Moses?

Christ says, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17). Just as the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, the Passover sacrifice is fulfilled in the new sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore (at least, hopefully) every Sunday we fulfill the ordinance of Moses to remember the Passover.

The connection between the Passover and the Eucharist is further shown by the Paschal cups. There are four cups of wine ceremonially consumed during the Passover meal: the cups of Sanctification, Deliverance, Blessing, and Praise. After the meal was finished, when the last cup had been consumed, the father would say, “Tel telesti” which means, “It is finished.”

    There is general agreement among biblical scholars that during the Last Supper, a Passover meal, Jesus and His disciples only drank three of the paschal cups leaving the cup of Praise unconsumed, the meal unfinished (Hahn 229).

Jesus acknowledges this omission saying, “I will not drink the fruit of the vine till the kingdom of God come” (Luke 22:18). During the Agony of the Garden, Jesus speaks of a cup: “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mark 14:36). This “cup” isn’t just a metaphor for Christ’s suffering on the Cross. John’s Gospel tells us that towards the end of the Passion, Jesus says, “I thirst” (John 19:28). Using a hyssop branch (the same kind of wood used to sprinkle the blood of the Paschal Lamb according to Exod. 12:22), someone offers Him a sponge soaked with vinegar. After drinking, Christ says, “It is finished.” Tel telesti.

What He “finished” is the Passover of the Last Supper meal. The vinegar in the sponge constitutes the fourth and final cup of the Passover. Jesus deliberately prolongs the Last Supper meal to include His Passion. This shows us the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. Jesus blessing the bread and wine of the Last Supper, transforming them into His Body and Blood, is directly linked to the sacrifice of that Body and Blood on the Cross.

The links between the Eucharist and the Old Testament are important, not just because they illustrate how as St. Augustine wrote, “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New,” but they help us to better understand the great gift of the Eucharist.

The Mass is neither a mere remembrance of the Last Supper nor a “re-crucifying” of Christ. Rather, it is a participation in the timeless sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. This sacrifice was prefigured throughout the Old Testament as God prepared His people for the saving power of His Son.

Melchisedech suggests a new blessing through bread and wine. Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac helps us to understand how God provided Himself as a sacrificial victim in our place. The Paschal Lamb connects the deliverance of the Israelites from slavery to the Egyptians to our deliverance from slavery to sin. The Paschal cups show us how Christ fulfills the Old Testament with His Passion and death and gives us new life in His New Covenant.

While reflecting on the Eucharist, we must recognize that it is a difficult teaching for some. Our materialistic culture has developed an aversion to the supernatural. It looks at the consecrated Host and only sees an unleavened wafer. That’s the thing about the Eucharist. Even though we might have very good reasons to believe in the True Presence, like the Bread of Life discourse (John 6) and the Eucharistic imagery of the Old Testament, at the end of the day all we can do is believe. St. Thomas Aquinas aptly wrote, “faith supplies where senses fail.” We are, you might say, forced to have a humble faith in the Eucharist, because if we were to rely solely on ourselves, we too would only see bread.

The bottom line is: resting in the tabernacle, made present in the Mass, is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Universe. So when you genuflect before entering your pew or kneel during the Eucharistic consecration, you’re not just fulfilling some liturgical requirement or performing a rote action, you are humbling yourself before God himself.

Blessed be Jesus in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar.  

The Fight for Marriage

The latest movie in JJ Abram's reboot of a classic franchise, Star Trek Beyond, will be coming out in a couple of weeks. From the looks of the trailer, it will be pretty good: a lot of action, a lot of special effects, and the sense of wonder that has attracted so many multigenerational fans. But there is something in this movie that you won't see in any of the trailers but you might have seen in the news. Sulu, the pilot of the Enterprise, comes out as gay. This is such an unnecessary and superfluous departure from the tradition of the original series that even George Takei, the actor who first played Sulu and a gay-rights activist in real life, condemned the move.

This leaves many people asking: why? Even without having seen the movie, it's probably pretty fair to guess that Sulu being gay contributes nothing to the film. We ask the same questions when we see the gay couple in Modern Family, Oscar in The Office, or the token homosexual characters in virtually any other TV series. 

The reason for this entertainment trend is quite simple. There is a concentrated effort to normalize homosexual behavior. And that effort is successful. The US Supreme Court ruled last summer that gay "marriage" is a constitutional right. The number of people who identify as a homosexual has more than doubled in the past decade. And if you dare say that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, you will instantly be branded as an intolerant, hateful bigot. 

This is not really a fight for rights. There's no such thing as a right to marry whomever you want just like there is no such thing as a right to abortion. Both are artificial creations of a political and activist Supreme Court bench. Just like we saw with Ginsberg's criticism of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump (which is literally a violation of Canon 5.A.1of the Code of Conduct for US Judges), Justices are far from above engaging in partisan politics, which certainly casts suspicion on the strict constitutionality of their decisions. And even if there was ever a fight for the rights of homosexuals, it has no real need to exist now. It is no longer legally or socially acceptable to discriminate against people who struggle with homosexual attractions. And that's a good thing. Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not hate homosexuals. We recognize first and foremost that they are people and therefore have an unalienable dignity. Struggling with homosexual attraction is not in itself a sin. Engaging in the behavior, however, is. 

The issue here is that there are forces actively trying to attack the traditional institution of marriage. The move towards normalized gay "marriage" is not a move towards equality, but rather a move towards the degeneration of marriage. While we certainly have a problem with divorce and adultery in our country, gay "marriage" does so much more to undermine the foundations of marriage. It lowers marriage to mere sexual attraction instead of self-giving love. 

The great lie of gay "marriage" is that sex is the greatest good. 

It is not. 

God is the greatest good, and He created men and women for each other, not for themselves. If sex is the greatest good, then why did Christ die on the Cross for us? The Cross is the greatest act of love. Our culture has deluded itself from divorcing procreation and self-giving from sex. This divorce has led to many of the evils that we see today. 

We can see the insanity and illogic of the gay "marriage" army in its foot soldiers and apologists. If you've ever made the mistake of pursuing the comment section of a Catholic post about gay "marriage," you will see the same arguments over and over again: "It's not hurting anyone," or "Let people love who they want," along with a string of straw-men and name calling. These arguments barely deserve that name, they are frenzies of emotion, not logic and certainly not Truth. The fact is people are hurt by the normalization of gay "marriage." The participants are hurt because they are in a state of sin. They follow their passions and end up in a mere shadow of real married love. Children the "couple" adopt are also hurt. Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex parents are significantly disadvantaged and, more importantly, they grow up being taught that love is only an emotion or attraction. 

Accepting gay "marriage" is not a victory for love because a homosexual couple cannot love each other the way a married couple ought to. That's the truth. That is why we defend the sanctity of marriage. As I have said before, love is so much more than sex. Married couples are called to a higher, procreative, and unitive love which cannot exist between a homosexual couple. 

Marriage is meant to be unitive. Marriage is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity: two people become one. That is why Adam exclaimed "flesh of my flesh" when he saw Eve, his wife. 

Sex and married life are also meant to be procreative; "go forth and multiply" was a command, not a suggestion. This, of course, does not demean the married love of couples who cannot have children because of medical complications. Their intentions and potential still point towards the creation of new life. But this does condemn homosexual "marriage" because it is physically incompatible with procreation. 

The gay "marriage" agenda is neither meek nor innocent. It is fanatical and cunning. It is engaged in a ware against the institution of marriage, against the family. This lobby uses shows like Modern Family to suggest that homosexual unions are normal, "modern." Sodomy was not such an issue even a few decades ago because our culture held some degree of Christian values, values that are rapidly disappearing today. The culture has become a crusader for the sake of sin. 

This is dangerous because we are walking a slippery slope. In the Bible, sodomy is always associated with incest and bestiality, and for good reason. Once one becomes "acceptable," the rest will soon follow. If a man can marry a man, why can't he marry his sister, or a cow, or a tree? If sexual attraction is the only justification we need, it becomes very difficult to argue against these grave moral evils. 

Brothers and sisters, we must mount a defense of marriage. We are on the brink of becoming another Sodom and Gomorrah. With Christ as our Commander and the Truth of the Gospel as our fortress, we can defy the powers of this world that will only be appeased by the utter desecration of marriage. 

You who are married, live in communion with the Church. Let your love and fidelity be a testament to the Truth. You who are single, honor sex as an expression of love for marriage alone. Court with an eye towards marriage, don't simply date and break hearts for the fun of it. You who have children, teach them. They need to learn the truth about love and marriage and they need to hear it from you! Be careful with what you let them watch and read. One of my favorite priests likes to say that giving unrestricted Internet access to a child is the same as leaving them alone in an adult bookstore. The Internet is morally neutral. It is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. But it also gives a voice to people who more often than not attack the traditions of the Church. They abuse their arbitrary influence and lead others into sin. Even be wary of seemingly innocuous cartoons. All too many are beginning to subversively spread a pro-gay-"marriage" message (as I understand it, Steven Universe and Adventure Time are among these, just to name two).

But most of all, in order to defend marriage, we must love. Show the world what love is - not an emotion, not an attraction, but self-sacrifice for the good of the other. Love those who struggle with same-sex attractions; help them bear their Crosses. Remember that an oft forgotten spiritual work of mercy is to instruct the ignorant. Spread the truth about marriage. It is not loving to allow someone to remain oblivious to the truth about marriage, it is tolerant and selfish. 

The only way we will defeat the forces who are trying to destroy marriage is by living an authentic witness to the true nature of married love. 

Deus Vult!

A Divorce Society

We have lost our reverence for the sacrament of marriage. You hear this a lot in reference to the legalization of homosexual "unions," which are indeed a terrible mockery of the indissoluble union between man and woman instituted by God. But this is just one of the symptoms of a culture bereft of respect for matrimony, and a rather minor one at that. Proportionately, there are surprisingly few homosexuals. Therefore the effects of gay marriage are relatively limited in scope.

There is one symptom of our culture of death and disunity that dwarfs homosexual "marriage" in both scope and significance: divorce. 

Divorce is so commonplace today, it's almost moral gray noise. We forget that half of modern marriages end in divorce. We forget that whole legal practices have been built upon divorce cases. No one pays any attention to the fact that celebrities have five ex-wives and their current spouse is half their age. Nevertheless the roots of a lot of our problems today lie in divorce. Divorce could well be what kills our culture. 

Indissolubility is one of the essential characteristics of the Sacrament of marriage. God did not intend for the wedding band to be a rubber band, easily stretched and easily broken. Marriage is a union that should be set in gold, not broken for convenience. 

Christ's teachings on this subject are very clear: "What God has joined together, man must not separate.... I say to you, whoever divorces his wife

(unless the marriage is unlawful)
and marries another commits adultery." (Matthew 19:6,9)

It is amazing how easily the words of the Gospel are forgotten by Christians. The teachings of the Church, however, are decisive. Matrimony is a sacrament that should not be changed. 

Apologists for the existence of divorce always fall back to the singular example of an abusive spouse. Clearly, they say, such a case would merit the severance of marital relationships. The Church allows for the physical separation of spouses in extremely grave cases such as abuse. Reconciliation, however, remains the goal in such cases. The nature of the marital bond means that the one spouse must never give up on the other. In extreme cases, there is the process of annulment. Ecclesiastical authorities can declare a marriage to be null and void, as if the bond had never existed in the first place, but this is the exception and not the rule. 

Nowadays, couples become divorced for trivialities. They break the divine bond of matrimony for incompatibility of temper or even economical reasons. There are several attitudes of this culture of death that contribute to a high divorce rate.

The most prevalent erroneous attitude towards marriage is that of temporality. A man and a woman should not become married because they are attracted to one another for beauty is fleeting with age. They should become married because they love one another, not with a carnal love, but with a sacrificial love. Marriage is not a condition forced upon a couple because of the duration of their relationship. It is not the evolution of a dating relationship, but the highest form of love a man can have for a woman and likewise. 

Some like to think that divorce is a victimless phenomenon, that its effect is limited to husband and wife, that since two consenting adults agree to go their separate ways no harm has been done. That is not the truth. Irreparable damage is done to the very core of society: the nuclear family. Children are never the same after a divorce. Regardless of age, they are scarred for the rest of their lives. Suddenly, Mommy and Daddy are no longer living together. The children are deprived of the gift of a father and a mother. Vast numbers of families today are headed by single-moms. 

Binders of studies have been done on the effects of only having a single parent. The single most common denominator for prison inmates is that they were raised by a single parent. A 1996 study showed that 70% of juvenile delinquents were raised by single mothers. Divorce is even more prevalent in minority families. A study by the Progressive Policy issue showed that if you control for the effects of single mothers, the difference between the white and black crime rates disappears. 

The scariest numbers, however, come from a Village Voice cited study. If a child was raised by a single mother, they "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home." 

(Note: most of these studies were listed in an article on rightwingnews.com)

Divorce is a viscous cycle. Even if a couple doesn't have a child when they first get divorced, aren't they even more likely to get divorced a second and a third time? And a child from a divorced family, will undoubtedly be far more inclined to have a divorce when they themselves become married. That is the cycle that will dethrone the world as we know it. 

What we need today are more models of the beauty of Holy Matrimony. We need more married couples who embody the spirit of St. Monica. St. Monica is best remembered by her relationship with her son, St. Augustine. Augustine was an avowed heretic for many years. He was an outspoken opponent of the Church during a time of Roman persecution. But through the unceasing prayers of his pious mother, Augustine became a Catholic and went on to become one of the greatest doctors of the Church. Clearly, St. Monica is an example of the value of persistent prayer and the need to pray for one's children. But there is a better reason that she should serve as the model for married couples today.

No marriage is perfect. You cannot expect two human beings to live together and never fight. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that some marriages are much more difficult than others. St. Monica's marriage was one of those. She was married to Patricius, a pagan. Patricius was about as abusive as a spouse can get. He verbally abused the faith that Monica held so dearly to her heart. He was both an alcoholic and a gambler. But St. Monica never gave up on her husband. It is very doubtful that she always liked him, but she never stopped loving him. Just as her persistent prayers saved her son, St. Monica's faith converted her husband on his deathbed.

We need more couples like St. Monica and less like those on Desperate Housewives.

Marriage is a sacred institution created by God. People like to say that Christians did not create marriage and therefore they have no say on the subject. Only half of that is true. Christians did not come up with marriage just as they did not invent the Mass. Both were instituted by God Himself. It is therefore impossible for us to change the essential nature of marriage. All we can do is twist and pervert it. Yes, homosexuality distorts Holy Matrimony. Divorce, however, does so even more.

Deus Volt!

The Frame and the Painting

What is your excuse for not attending Mass? Surely your schedule was not so full that you could not work in an hour on a Sunday morning or even a Saturday night; you certainly found enough time to binge watch that new series on Netflix! If you weren't too busy, then why? The Mass was boring?

The Mass is not boring. That is not a subjective opinion. That is a fact. There is something seriously wrong with the person who finds the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of God boring. It certainly seems much less boring than watching a football game. The "miracles" your team is able to pull off in overtime are nothing next to the true miracle of the Eucharist.

But the meat of the Mass is not what people find boring. It is not the mystery of transubstantiation, it is the homily, the priest, the music, or even the person sitting next to you. The music was either too old-fashioned or too contemporary. The cantor sang off-key. The homily was too long, it was too hard to understand, it was not long enough. You know for a fact that the man sitting next to you is a lazy bum who drinks the night away; what business does he have being in church? (What business do you have being in church for that matter? But that is not the question here.) It seems that parishioners can find error in almost every part of the Mass except for the actual act of the Mass.

Actually, this is how it should be. The Church is a divine institution, the body of Christ, composed of sinners. As Pope Francis is fond of saying, the Church is not a hotel for saints, but rather a hospital for sinners. It makes perfect sense, therefore, that as the people celebrating the Mass are somewhat less than perfect, the music and the homily, may not quite attain to your perfect expectations.

In the Mass, the celebrant, the priest, acts in persona Christi. No surprise, that just means that he acts in the person of Christ. At the beginning of the Mass, the priest says: "The Lord be with you." This is not simply a blessing. It is an announcement. Jesus is in the house, acting through the priest. Even so, the priest is still just a man. A holy man hopefully, but still just a man. The homily is not the newest installment of the Gospel. It is the advice and instruction of a priest of God. We have no right to expect every single Sunday homily to qualify our pastor to be a Doctor of the Church. Yes, perhaps the priest speaks with a lisp, perhaps he drones on. But the homily is not the center of the Mass. The Mass is not an oratory contest.

Few parishes have the budgets to support having Matt Maher play at every Mass. That would be nice, but also impractical. You might have to settle for Joe Shmoe, the neighborhood plumber who took piano lessons for two years. The Mass is neither a speaking event nor a concert. What matters is not the skill of the musician but rather the devotional spirit engendered by the music.

Your parish might have the worst homilist on the face of the planet. Your cantor might be confused as to whether she is a baritone or a soprano. The person you are sitting next to might not have showered for three weeks. It might be too hot. It might be too cold. NONE OF THIS MATTERS! These are external characteristics of the Mass, they are the accoutrements. They do not change the essential beauty of the celebration of the Mass!

Very rarely does garnish ruin a dish.

Let's say that you go to an art museum. You find a Picasso or a Rembrandt or a DaVinci. The painting itself speaks to your soul. You have no doubt as to its beauty. You could say that the essential nature of the painting is its beauty. But then, you take a step back and look at the painting again. A horrendous mistake has been made. Instead of the elegant, hand crafted mahogany that this masterpiece deserves, it has been framed with a worn, splintered piece of scrap wood. Yes, your artistic sensibilities are offended by this terrible choice for a frame. But be honest with yourself. Does the frame in any way detract from the beauty of the painting itself? Sure the frame might be in bad taste. It might even be a little distracting. But how can the frame change the beauty of what it contains?  A beautiful woman is as beautiful in a tarnished mirror as she is in a polished one. It is just a little easier to appreciate in the polished mirror; just as the beauty of the painting would be in a better frame; just as the Mass would be with the perfect music and a saint for a priest. But the Mass is beautiful nevertheless.

Deus Volt!

The Sublime Beauty of the Eucharist

In this world, man has always been in search of that which is most beautiful. Beauty is the ideal to which sculptors, artists, writers, poets, and musicians have been striving towards since the beginning of time. But it is a vain search. The greatest beauty has already been given to us. It has been given to us by God. This apex of beauty is none other than the Eucharist.

There is no need to search for the Eucharist, to attempt to hew its form out of marble or breathe it to life from a canvas. The Eucharist is set before us, made available every day of the year.

I should have no need to explain what the Eucharist is, though for the sake of clarity, I will digress. The Eucharist was established by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. But His final Passover meal before His Crucifixion was not the first time that Jesus instructed his disciples about the wonderful mystery of the Eucharist. The whole of Christ's teaching led up to the dual climax of the Institution of the Eucharist and Crucifixion. And it is not a coincidence that Jesus gave His disciples the Eucharist just before He gave Himself up to the Romans.

The Eucharist is beautiful because of its impossible reality. Our limited human understanding cannot so much as hope to attain so much as a child's understanding of the Eucharist. What our mortal senses perceive to be merely blood and wine is so much more than that. The "bread" is the flesh of Christ. The "wine" is His blood. This is an astounding contradiction of human reasoning.

The Eucharist is the greatest of sacrifices. Just as love is a sacrifice, the gift of the Eucharist in every Mass is the greatest expression of God's unconditional love for us. He does not hold anything back. There are no misgivings in the love of God, no terms that He sets on his affections for us. He gives Himself to us in the guise of bread and wine, giving us His all: His body and His blood. Just as human understanding cannot comprehend the Eucharist, human expressions of love cannot rival the eternal sacrifice of the Mass.

Often, the beauty of the Eucharist goes ignored. How often do we go to Mass and spend more time thinking about what the person next to us or the baby two pews ahead is doing instead of reflecting on and recognizing what is happening on the altar? How often do we receive the body and blood of Christ, freely given, and mistake it for a symbol?

God gives Himself to us, us worthless sinners. He loves us with an incomprehensible love even when we disobey Him. God sees our every flaw, He is the Witness to our every iniquity. It is difficult for us to believe that any human being could know every one of our sins and still love us. But that is exactly what God does, most fully expressed in the Eucharistic miracle.

Let us make sure that God's passionate love for us does not go unrequited. There are two ways in which we can thank God for his love, for there is nothing we can do to deserve it. We can love God through the people He has placed around us. Our love for our brothers and sisters, even if it is just a faint shadow of the love of God, brings us into closer communion with the will of God, closer to Heaven. The other thing we can do is show a greater appreciation for the Eucharist. Go to Mass every week. Reflect, not on what you will be eating for dinner or which NFL team will win the Super Bowl, but rather on the divine mystery of the Eucharist made manifest in the Mass. Eucharistic Adoration is also a worthy expression of our gratitude for the gift of the Eucharist. Kneel before the Blessed Sacrament. Bring yourself into the real presence of God.

O Lord Jesus, please help us, the Church, and the world, gain a greater understanding and love for the great act of love You have given to us undeserved. Thank you for the sublime, the beautiful, Eucharist.

Deus Volt!