I have always thought that the fact he vanished just as they recognied Him after the blessing was indivative that he was now physically present in the elements and would be so from now on. I think it was definitely a celebration of the sacrament and could really be interpretated in no other way.In last Sunday’s gospel, the eyes of the two disciples at Emmaus were opened when Jesus broke the bread. Was this because he was actually celebrating the Eucharist, changing the bread into his own body? Or did this breaking of bread merely represent the Eucharist (without being an actual celebration of the Sacrament), and the eyes of the disciples where opened because of seeing Jesus doing something that looked almost like the Eucharist?
This stupendous Gospel text already contains the structure of the Mass: in the first part the hearing of the word through the sacred Scriptures; in the second the Eucharistic liturgy and communion with Christ present in the sacrament of his Body and his Blood.
You cannot get a better interpretation than that which Pope Benedict XVI has offered.Nourished at this twofold table, the Church is unceasingly built up and renews itself day by day in faith, in hope and in charity. Through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, let us pray that every Christian and every community, reliving the experience of the disciples of Emmaus, rediscover the grace of the transforming encounter with the risen Lord.
Perhaps what some may have forgotten is that there were an additional 72 who were called by Jesus. St. Luke mentions this in his Gospel. Furthermore, when Matthias was chosen, one of the requirements was that Judas’ successor had to have been with the group from the get-go. I suspect that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus were part of that 72, as were Matthias and Joses (Barsabbas).What I found interesting as I read this reading yesterday, is that
it says that these two men were disciples of Jesus. Note, not apostles.Yet, it was in the breaking of the bread by Jesus, that they recognized him. Note, according to the reading, this is the day Jesus rose. Considering the short span of time between the Last Supper and the Resurection, its unlikely that they witnessed the Apostles saying Mass. So, they would’ve had to have been present at the Last Supper, when Christ instituted the Mass.
Could it also mean, that more than just the 12 Apostles were given the power to say Mass?
Just pondering.
Jim
Were there more than two disciples on the road then?Perhaps what some may have forgotten is that there were an additional 72 who were called by Jesus. St. Luke mentions this in his Gospel. Furthermore, when Matthias was chosen, one of the requirements was that Judas’ successor had to have been with the group from the get-go. I suspect that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus were part of that 72, as were Matthias and Joses (Barsabbas).
From what can be inferred, the Traditional interpretation has been that there were two. Even sacred art depicts that number.Were there more than two disciples on the road then?
“What are you discussing as you walk along?”
They stopped, looking downcast.
One of them, named Cleopas, said to him in reply,
“Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem
who does not know of the things
that have taken place there in these days?”
sorry, misread your post. I thought you were saying it was Matthisas and Joses. My mistake.Perhaps what some may have forgotten is that there were an additional 72 who were called by Jesus. St. Luke mentions this in his Gospel. Furthermore, when Matthias was chosen, one of the requirements was that Judas’ successor had to have been with the group from the get-go. I suspect that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus were part of that 72, as were Matthias and Joses (Barsabbas).
For ONCE I am not sure I agree with Aquinas’ exegesis. If this were true, wouldn’t that mean that at the Last Supper the Apostles would have consumed the unglorified Body of Christ? I thought the whole point was that we communicated with the glorified Body. Comments?I’m not too sure but from what I understand of St. Aquinas he would say that even the last supper was a Mass and that Jesus was present in his human form in the bread. He even suggests that if bread from the last supper had been left for three days it would have been Jesus’ human living body, then his dead body and then his ressurected body changing substance as the events happened in time. If this is true then I would sumise that the events at Emmaus would also have yealded a real presence in the bread.